Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
Volume 34, Issue 9 , Pages 1499-1503, September 2008

Automated Edge Detection Versus Manual Edge Measurement in Analysis of Brachial Artery Reactivity: A Comparison Study

  • Eric B. Williamson

      Affiliations

    • General Clinical Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Eric Williamson, M.Ed., University of Minnesota, 206 Masonic Cancer Center, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
    • ,
  • Ulf G. Bronas

      Affiliations

    • School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
    • School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
    • ,
  • Donald R. Dengel

      Affiliations

    • School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
    • Research Service, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Received 16 October 2007; received in revised form 3 January 2008; accepted 31 January 2008. published online 31 March 2008.

Abstract 

High resolution ultrasound, combined with computer imaging technology, is commonly used to measure changes in brachial artery diameter for the determination of endothelial-dependent vasodilation (EDD) and endothelial independent-vasodilation (EID). Currently, two methods of computerized edge-detection systems are in use to measure changes in artery diameter. One system involves the sonographer manually tracking the artery walls while the second system involves a computer automated edge-detection system that automatically tracks the artery wall. The purpose of this study was to compare the two types of computerized edge-detection systems for measuring vascular function and structure. One hundred fifty (female = 70, male = 80) participants agreed to participate. Baseline brachial diameter, carotid intima-medial thickness (cIMT), EDD and EID were measured by the two computerized edge-detection systems utilizing the same ultrasound B-mode image. Mean values (±standard error) for baseline diameter, cIMT, EDD and EID were 3.53 (±0.10) mm, 0.43 (±0.01) mm, 5.72 (±0.20)% and 22.17 (±0.60)%, respectively for the manual edge-detection software system. Mean values for baseline diameter, cIMT, EDD and EID were 3.59 (±0.10) mm, 0.44 (±0.01) mm, 7.33 (±0.30)% and 25.77 (±0.60)%, respectively for the automated edge-detection software system. Bland-Altman plots displayed large variations between the two edge-detection methods for assessing cIMT and changes in artery diameter following brachial EDD and EID. The results of the study demonstrate that manual and automated computerized edge-detection systems track dynamic changes in brachial artery diameter and cIMT measures differently. Therefore, caution should be used when comparing research utilizing different computerized edge-detection systems for measuring vascular function and structure. (E-mail: will0188@umn.edu)

Key Words: Brachial reactivity, Vascular function, Edge-detection

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0301-5629(08)00061-6

doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.01.021

Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
Volume 34, Issue 9 , Pages 1499-1503, September 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution