Surgical or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) techniques can be beneficial for heterogeneous emphysema. Post-processing software tools for lobar emphysema quantification are useful for patient and target lobe selection, treatment planning and post-interventional follow-up. We aimed to evaluate the inter-software variability of emphysema quantification using fully automated lobar segmentation prototypes.
66 patients with moderate to severe COPD who underwent CT for planning of BLVR were included. Emphysema quantification was performed using 2 modified versions of in-house software (without and with prototype advanced lung vessel segmentation; programs 1 [YACTA v.2.3.0.2] and 2 [YACTA v.2.4.3.1]), as well as 1 commercial program 3 [Pulmo3D VA30A_HF2] and 1 pre-commercial prototype 4 [CT COPD ISP ver7.0]). The following parameters were computed for each segmented anatomical lung lobe and the whole lung: lobar volume (LV), mean lobar density (MLD), 15th percentile of lobar density (15th), emphysema volume (EV) and emphysema index (EI). Bland-Altman analysis (limits of agreement, LoA) and linear random effects models were used for comparison between the software.
Segmentation using programs 1, 3 and 4 was unsuccessful in 1 (1%), 7 (10%) and 5 (7%) patients, respectively. Program 2 could analyze all datasets. The 53 patients with successful segmentation by all 4 programs were included for further analysis. For LV, program 1 and 4 showed the largest mean difference of 72 ml and the widest LoA of [-356, 499 ml] (p<0.05). Program 3 and 4 showed the largest mean difference of 4% and the widest LoA of [-7, 14%] for EI (p<0.001).
Only a single software program was able to successfully analyze all scheduled data-sets. Although mean bias of LV and EV were relatively low in lobar quantification, ranges of disagreement were substantial in both of them. For longitudinal emphysema monitoring, not only scanning protocol but also quantification software needs to be kept constant.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2021.
All research outputs
#8,919,193
of 29,868,835 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#78,183
of 207,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,795
of 317,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,074
of 5,193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,868,835 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
