IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2015 · 228 citations · 34 references
DentistryOral RadiologyOrthodonticsDental RadiologyDigital OrthodonticsMaxillofacial ImagingAnatomical Landmark IdentificationCephalometric AnalysisCephalometric ImagingCephalometric RadiographyDental ImagingRadiographic LandmarksAnatomical Landmark AnalysisAnatomical Landmark DetectionAutomatic Landmark DetectionCephalometric Landmark DetectionDetectionGround Truth Data CollectionLandmark DetectionRadiographic Landmark Identification
Cephalometric analysis is a critical tool for orthodontic assessment and treatment planning. The study evaluates methods submitted to the Automatic Cephalometric X‑Ray Landmark Detection Challenge at IEEE ISBI 2014. Methods were tested on 300 patient cephalograms from Tri‑Service General Hospital, Taiwan, with landmarks manually annotated by two experts, and quantitative comparisons were performed. Three methods achieved over 80 % detection within a 4 mm precision range, but only one exceeded 70 % within the clinically acceptable 2 mm range, highlighting the strengths and limitations of current approaches.
Cephalometric analysis is an essential clinical and research tool in orthodontics for the orthodontic analysis and treatment planning. This paper presents the evaluation of the methods submitted to the Automatic Cephalometric X-Ray Landmark Detection Challenge, held at the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging 2014 with an on-site competition. The challenge was set to explore and compare automatic landmark detection methods in application to cephalometric X-ray images. Methods were evaluated on a common database including cephalograms of 300 patients aged six to 60 years, collected from the Dental Department, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taiwan, and manually marked anatomical landmarks as the ground truth data, generated by two experienced medical doctors. Quantitative evaluation was performed to compare the results of a representative selection of current methods submitted to the challenge. Experimental results show that three methods are able to achieve detection rates greater than 80% using the 4 mm precision range, but only one method achieves a detection rate greater than 70% using the 2 mm precision range, which is the acceptable precision range in clinical practice. The study provides insights into the performance of different landmark detection approaches under real-world conditions and highlights achievements and limitations of current image analysis techniques.
34
Leo Breiman · Machine Learning · 2001 · 126.2K citations · Full text
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Fabián Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort et al. · arXiv (Cornell University) · 2012 · 63.7K citations · Full text
Pierre Geurts, Damien Ernst, Louis Wehenkel · Machine Learning · 2006 · 8.7K citations · Full text