• No results found

Correlations and Reproducibility

5. Comparison o f a broad set o f Texture Analysis A lgorithm s

5.3.1 Correlations and Reproducibility

Peak correlation coefficients between features and BM D are shown in Table 5-2 through Table

5-4. The spatial size(s) o f the features are also quoted (where appropriate). The correlations

between textural data and image greyscale statistics are shown in Table 5-6 through Table 5-8.

The reproducibility test results and partial correlations between TA data and BM D correcting

for greyscale m ean and SD are also included in Table 5-6 through Table 5-8. Tables are split by

textural paradigm (e.g. topological, N*-order, or matched-filter/spectral).

5.3.1.1 1** Order Statistics

The mean greylevel correlated significantly with BMD (r=0.4,/?<0.01). Other 1®‘ order image

characteristics did not correlate with BMD. None o f the 1®* order statistics were found to be

reproducible. Pre-processing the images with a high-pass filter and histogram-equalisation

resulted in images which had 1®‘ order characteristics that did not correlate with BMD.

5.3.1.2 Amplitude Varying Rate Matrix (AVRM)

Amplitude Vary Rate M atrix features “e”, “//” and “wwm” correlated with BM D (r=0.28, r=-

0.46 and r=-0.55, respectively). A non-linear correlation was found between “A” and BMD

(rs=-0.26,p<0.05). The “e”, “//” and “«wm” feature data were found to be reproducible. High-

pass filtering and histogram equalisation did not alter the correlation coefficients significantly.

Pre-processing the images with a low-pass median filter resulted in no correlations being found

between BM D and any features.

The “//” and “«wm” features were found to have a moderate correlation with both mean

and SD o f image greyscale. Correcting for the greylevel m ean and SD had the effect o f reducing

5.3.1.3 Auto correlation

A correlation was found for the Auto-correlation (AC) and Auto-correlation o f Sobel Edge

transform ed images (ACSE) across the femoral neck, but not along it. The details o f these

correlations for the ACSE are given in Chapter 4,

AC feature correlation drops slowly from r=0.3 at d=\ to r=0.26 at J=18 for Pearson’s

correlations but was only significant for d=\ in rank-order correlations. The correlation between

ACSE and BM D increased with displacement, levelling o ff after 30 pixels, but with two peaks

at 7 and 11 pixels (r=0.51 and r=0.60). High-pass filtering and histogram equalisation did not

increase the correlation with BMD (correlation coefficients were reduced). Pre-processing the

images with a low-pass median filter resulted in no correlations being found between BMD and

ACSE at 7 and 11 pixels across the femoral neck. The data for both the AC and two ACSE

peaks (7 and 11 pixels) were reproducible.

The AC correlated weakly with greylevel mean and strongly with greylevel SD.

However, correcting for the greylevel mean/SD did not reduce the correlation between AC and

BMD. Both ACSE peaks had a moderate correlation with both mean and SD o f image

greyscale. Correcting for the greylevel mean and SD had the effect o f reducing the correlation

coefficients but did not remove the relationships completely.

5.3.1.4 Coarseness

A correlation between the density o f maxima/minima across the femoral neck and BMD was

observed (r=0.26) and the data was reproducible. The correlation was poor and was not found in

any other direction or rank-ordered correlations. High-pass filtering and histogram equalisation

did not have a significant effect. Low-pass, median filtered images did not show any correlation

between extrema density and BMD. The maxima density o f the image corresponded to a

greyscale peak every 5.81mm, or 0.172 peaks per mm (Table 5-5).

The extrema density across the femoral neck correlated weakly with greyscale mean

and moderately with SD. Correcting for greylevel mean and SD reduced the correlation

coefficient below the significance threshold.

5.3.1.5 Co-occurrence Matrix

The results o f the Co-occurrence M atrix IDM feature correlated with BMD (r=-0.69) as

described in Chapter 4. Other features (Energy, Entropy, Correlation and Contrast) also

correlated with BMD but to a lesser extent and peak correlations were not found across the

femoral neck but along it or at 45/135 degrees. The IDM feature was reproducible but did

correlate weakly or moderately with both greyscale mean and SD. Correcting for greylevel

m ean and SD had the effect o f reducing the correlation coefficients between the features and

BM D but the coefficients were still statistically significant.

Pre-processing the images with a low-pass median filter resulted in no correlations

being found between BMD and any CM feature across the femoral neck.

5.3.1.6 Edge Co-occurrences

Significant correlations between the Edge Co-occurrence and BM D were found across the

femoral neck with a peak correlation coefficient at 7 pixels (r=-0.36). The data for the peak

correlation coefficient at 7 pixels was reproducible. A correlation was also found along the

femoral neck for 1 pixel but was not reproducible. High-pass filtering and histogram

equalisation reduced the correlation coefficients while m edian filtering resulted in no significant

correlations being found.

The Edge Co-occurrence at 7 pixels had a strong negative correlation with greyscale SD

(r=-0.71). Correcting for this relationship reduced the correlation with BM D but the correlation

was still statistically significant. The entropy o f the Edge Co-occurrence function did not

correlate with BMD.

5.3.1.7 Fractal Signature

The results o f the analysis o f correlations can be found in Chapter 4 (r=0.35). Directional fractal

signatures were not found to show significant correlations with BMD for either the horizontal or

vertical axis.

The data was found to be reproducible. The fractal signature correlated moderately with

but the correlation was still statistically significant. The application o f low-pass median filters

and histogram equalisation did not affect the fractal dimension.

5.3.1.8 Fourier Spectral Statistics

A correlation between the second Principal Component Analysis factor o f the 2-dimensional

FFT spectrum and BM D was found (r=0,39). No other features o f the 1- or 2-dimensional

spectra were found to correlate with BMD.

Reproducibility analysis was not undertaken because the correlation was not sufficiently

strong but the second PCA factor did correlate moderately with mean greyscale. The mean

spectral power o f the ID function and the first PCA factor o f the 2D spectrum correlated weakly

with greylevel SD, while the second PCA factor correlated moderately with greylevel mean.

Correcting for these factors reduced the correlations with BM D below the significance

threshold.

The application o f high-pass filters, low-pass median filters and histogram equalisation

resulted in no significant correlations being found.

5.3.1.9 Geraets et al Features

Significant correlations were found between BMD and the Area (r=-0.36), Circ (r=-0.36). M esh

(r=-0.39). Nodes (r=-0.25) and Ends (r=0.34) features. A filter o f size 8 square was found to

produce the highest correlations between BMD and topological features.

Area, Circ and M esh features were reproducible but m oderate-strongly correlated with

both greyscale mean and SD. After correcting for mean and SD the correlation between the

features and BMD were reduced but remained significant.

Pre-processing the images with a low-pass median filter resulted in no correlations

being found between BMD and any o f Geraets features.

5.3.1.10 Laws Energy Masks

Thirteen 2-dimensional matched-filters were found to correlate with BM D (Table 5-4) with

widths o f 3 to 7 pixels. High-pass filtering and histogram equalising images prior to the

application o f the convolution masks did not show any significant correlations between Laws

texture energy and BMD. Similarly, pre-processing the images with a low-pass median filter

resulted in no correlations being found between BM D and any o f the texture masks.

Reproducibility analysis was not undertaken because the correlations were not

sufficiently strong (|r|<0.5). All filters correlated moderately or m oderately-strongly with

greyscale mean. Ten filters also correlated with greyscale SD. Correcting for these factors

marginally reduced the correlation between the matched-filter energy and BM D for some filters

but m arginally increased the correlation for others. Only one filter’s correlation was reduced

below the significance level (L7S7).

5.3.1.11 Neighbourhood Grey-Tone Difference Matrix (NGTDM)

The NGTDM algorithm using a filter with fc = 2 m m and a neighbourhood o f 3 pixels (7

pixels/0.94mm wide) was found to be optimal. The feature fcon^ had the highest correlation with

BMD (r=0.51), while fstr had a low non-linear correlation with BM D (r^=-0.28).

All o f the features were found to be reproducible. The fcon feature correlated strongly

with mean greylevel (r=0.84) but not SD. The fcos, fcom and fstr features correlated weakly and/or

moderately with greylevel mean and SD. Correcting for mean and SD greylevel, reduced the

correlation between fon and BMD, but the correlation rem ained significant.

Applying histogram equalisation did not significantly affect the correlation coefficients

between BMD and the NGTDM features (i.e. did not affect correlations more than the

significant figure). Pre-processing the images with a low-pass m edian filter resulted in no

correlations being found between BM D and NGTDM features.

5.3.1.12 Texture Spectrum.

Black-W hite Symmetry (BWS) and Degree o f Direction (DD) features o f the Texture Spectrum

were found to correlate with BMD (r=-0.33 & r=0.52). High-pass filtering and histogram

equalisation did not affect the correlation coefficients. BWS and DD features o f median-filtered

B W S and D D features w ere reproducible. B W S co rrelated w eak ly w ith m ean greylevel. C o rrectin g for the greylevel m ean and SD red u ced the co rrelatio n co efficien ts b u t the

relatio n sh ip rem ain ed significant.

Correlation analysis with femoral neck BMD

Texture Analysis Feature Maximum Correlation Spatial Size in pixels Method Pearson’s (Spearman’s) (mm) D* Order moment (Mean) 0.40" (0.30') -

Greyscale 2"‘* moment (SD) N S (7V5;) -

Moments 3^'^ moment (Skew) N S -

4* moment (Kurtosis) (7V6;) - Amplitude e 0.28' - Varying 11 -0 .4 6 "' (-0.41 ) - Rate Matrix Is N S (-0.26') - num -0 .5 5 '" (-0 .5 0 '") - crl N S - cr2 N S -

Auto-correlation f ' Peak across NOF 0 .5 1 '" (0 .5 6 '" ) 7 (0.94mm) o f Sobel Edges 2""^ Peak across NOF 0 .6 0 '" (0 .6 5 '") 11 (1.47mm)

Along NOF N S -

Auto-correlation Highest r across NOF 0.31* (0.27') 1 (0.13mm) Co-occurrence Contrast along NOF -0.29' (-0.34") 2 (0.25mm) Matrix Correlation along NOF 0.31" (0.36") 2 (0.25mm) Energy 45° to NOF -0 .5 0 '" (-0 .6 0 '") 10 (1.85mm) Entropy 45° to NOF -0 .5 3 '" (-0 .6 5 '") 10 (1.85mm) IDM across NOF -0 .6 9 '" (-.6 9 '" ) 7 (0.94mm Edge Densities Peak along NOF -0.28' (-0.26') 1 (0.13mm)

Peak across NOF -0.36" (-0.32") 7 (0.13mm) Neighbourhood fcos N S - Grey-Tone fcon 0 .5 1 '" (0 .6 6 '" ) 7 (0.91mm) Difference fbus N S - Matrix fcom N S - fs.r (-0.28') 7 (0.91mm) Texture BWS -0 .4 4 '" (-0.40") 3 (0.39mm) Spectrum GS N S (W5:) 3 (0.39mm) DD 0 .5 2 '" (0 .5 5 '" ) 3 (0.39mm)

T able 5-2: C orrelations between BMD and 2"*^- and H ig h er-O rd er tex tu re analysis algorithm s on 62 radiographs of the fem oral neck selectively sam pled from low and high fra c tu re risk groups. *p<0.05, **p<0.0\, ***/?<0.001, N S = Non-Significant. NO F = Neck of

Fem ur.

Texture Analysis Method

Correlation analysis with femoral neck BMD

Feature Maximum Correlation Pearson’s (Spearman’s)

Spatial Size in pixels (mm) Coarseness - Extrema Density (Maxima « Minima)_______ Overall Across NOF Along NOF

Filtered (All directions)

0.26' NS Geraets et al Features Area Circ Mesh Nets Axis Nodes Ends -0.36 -0.36* -0.39* NS NS -0.25* 0.34** (-0.32 ) (-0.30*) (-0.33 (-0.36* (-0.36* (-0.44**

T able 5-3: C orrelations between BMD and Topological texture analysis algorithm s on 62 rad io g rap h s of the fem oral neck selectively sam pled from low and high fra c tu re risk groups. *p<0.05, **/><0.01, ***/;<0.001, N S = Non-Significant. N O F = Neck of Fem ur.

(Spatial size data not applicable to m any topological features).

Texture Analysis Method

Correlation analysis with femoral neck BMD Feature Maximum Correlation

Pearson’s (Spearman’s)

Spatial Size in pixels (mm) Fourier ID mean power NS (A^; -

Spectrum 2D (PCA Factor 1) NS rA5[) -

2D (PCA Factor 2) 0.39*** (0.34**) -

All other 2D features NS rA^) -

Fractal Circular StElt 0.35** (0.34**) 16-18, 19-21 (2.1-2.4, 2.5-2.7mm) Signature Horizontal StElt (A^) -

Vertical StElt A:^ (A5) -

Laws Texture S3S3 -0.31* (-0.29*) 3 (0.39mm) Energy Masks S3E3 -0.28* (-0.26*) 3 (0.39mm) E5L5 0.38** (0.37**) 5 (0.65mm) L5E5 0.34** (0.34**) 5 (0.65mm) R5E5 -0.33** (-0.30*) 5 (0.65mm) R5L5 -0.32* (-0.29*) 5 (0.65mm) S5R5 -0.31* (-0.29*) 5 (0.65mm) R5S5 -0.35** (-0.33**) 5 (0.65mm) R5R5 -0.35** (-0.33**) 5 (0.65mm) E7L7 0.45*** (0.50***) 7 (0.91mm) L7S7 0.39** (0.35**) 7 (0.91mm) R7S7 -0.24* (-0.24*) 7 (0.91mm) R7R7 -0.27* (-0.26*) 7 (0.91mm) All other filters NS -

T able 5-4: C orrelations between BMD and Spectral and M atched-F ilter texture analysis algorithm s on 62 radiographs of the fem oral neck selectively sam pled from low and high fra c tu re risk groups. */?<0.05, **/><0.01, ***/?<0.001, N S = N on-Significant. NOF = Neck of

Fem ur.

Min Max Mean SD M ean Spatial Density per mm (min - max)

Maxima per 200 pixels 15.32 18.08 16.866 0.5682 0.172 (0.160-0.189)

Table 5-5: Statistics of the m axima density across the fem oral neck in a 200 by 200 pixel region.

Results o f Analysis

Texture Analysis Feature Pearson’s Correlation with Mean Pearson’s Correlation with SD of Partial Correlation with Reproducible on repeated Method o f Greyscale (Spearman’s) Greyscale (Spearman’s) BMD corrected for greyscale

mean & SD

analysis o f the same film? T' Order C' moment (Mean) - - N S - A

Greyscale 2"‘‘ moment (SD) N S (A5) - - A

Moments 3'^'* moment (Skew) N S (A5) N S (A^ - A

4'*’ moment (Kurtosis) N S (AS) - A

Amplitude e (A5) -0.29* ____________________ AS A

Varying 11 -0.37** (-0.38 ) .036" (-0.35 ) -0.34** A Rate Matrix Is N S (Aj^ N S (0.29*) AS A

num -0.47*** (-0.46***) 0.39** (0.38**) -0.49*** A crl N S fA57 N S (A5) AS y

cr2 N S (A57 N S AS y ...

Auto-correlation Highest r across NOF 0.33" (0.26*) -0.75’" (-0.75***) 0.31* y

Auto-correlation D* Peak across NOF 0 .38" (0.39**) -0.35" (-0.35**) 0.44*** y

o f Sobel Edges 2"‘* Peak across NOF 0.46*** (0.44***) -0.35** (-0.35**) 0.55*** y Co-occurrence Contrast along NOF -0.30* (-0.29*) 0.25* (0.26*) -0.28* y Matrix Correlation along NOF 0.32* (0.30**) -0.25* (-0.25*) 0.29* y

Energy 45° to NOF -0.39** (-0.40**) A^ (A^ -0.48*** y Entropy 45° to NOF -0.38** (-0.35**) A^ (A^ -0.54*** y IDM across NOF -0.43*** (-0.40**) 0.39** (0.37**) -0 .5 9 " ' y ... Edge Peak along NOF 0.46*" (0.53***) 0.55*** (0.56***) 0.29* A Co-occurrence Peak across NOF A:^ (A^ -0.71*" (-0.70***) 0.36** y Neighbourhood fcos -0.44*** (-0.38") 0.46*** (0.39**) AS y

Grey-Tone fcon 0.84*** (0.81***) N S (A^ 0.38** y Difference Matrix fbus A^ (A^ N S (A^ AS y

fcom 0.31* (0.45 **) 0.58*** (0 .6 7 ;-) -0.26* y fstr A^ (A^ 0.35** (0.53 ) -0.30* y

Texture BWS -0.34" (-0.36") A^ -0.36" y Spectrum GS 0.29* (A^ -0.30* (-0.27***) AS A DD A.^ (ASl N S (AS) 0.42** y

Table 5-6: C orrelation between greylevel histogram statistics and 2"** and H igher-order algorithm s and reproducibility. N=62. */?<0.05, **/;<0.01, ***p<0.001, N S = Non-Significant. NOF = Neck of Fem ur.

Results o f Analysis

Texture Analysis Feature Pearson’s Correlation with Mean Pearson’s Correlation with SD of Partial Correlation with Reproducible on repeated Method o f Greyscale (Spearman’s) Greyscale (Spearman’s) BMD corrected for greyscale

mean & SD

analysis o f the same film? Extrema Density Across NOF 0 .3 5 " (0.38") 0.52*'* (0 .5 0 '" ) NS

Geraets et al Area -0 .6 9 "' (-0 .7 0 "') -0.67*** (-0 .6 8 '") -0.25* y Features Circ -0.62*" (-0.61***) -0.66*** (-0.69***) -0.26* Mesh -0.67*" (-0.67***) -0.66*** (-0.68*") -0.31* y Axis NS (-0.29*) (-0.56***) -0.25* A Nodes NS (0.34**) (0.49***) 0.31* A Ends A.5 (-0.30*) NS (-0.55***) -0.25* A

Table 5-7: C orrelation between greylevel histogram statistics and topological algorithm s and reproducibility. N=62. */;<0.05, Non-Significant. NOF = Neck of Fem ur.

Results o f Analysis

Texture Analysis Feature Pearson’s Correlation with Mean Pearson’s Correlation with SD of Partial Correlation with Reproducible on repeated Method o f Greyscale (Spearman’s) Greyscale (Spearman’s) BMD corrected for

greyscale mean & SD

analysis o f the same film? Fourier 1D mean power 0.35'* (0.48***) NS -

Spectrum 2D (PCA Factor 1) 2D (PCA Factor 2) NS “5.42*** ( A ^ (0.49***) 0.40*" (0.28**) A ^ ( A 5 ) A ^ A ^ ; All other 2D features - - - A ^ -

fractal signature Circular StElt NS 0 .4 1 " (0.41") -0.33" y Laws Texture S3S3 I -0 .4 6 '" ! (-0.48'") -0.68*" (-0.65***) -0.33" -

Energy Masks S3E3 -0.45*** 1 -0.70*" (-0.67***) i -0.29* 1 E5L5 1 0 .4 2 " ' 1 (0.40' ) A ^ ( A ^ 0.25* L5E5 0.42"* I (0.50') 0.44*** (0.45 * * ) : 0.29* - R5E5 1 -0.54*** 1 (-0.56* *) !1 -0 .6 8 '" (-0.65**') -0.34" - R5L5 -0.55*** i (-0.56***) -0.69*** (-0.68***) -0.31* - S5R5 i -0.42*** (-0.46***) -0.67*** (-0.65***) -0.34" - R5S5 -0.56**' (-0 .5 8 '") -0.66’** (-0.64"*) -0.35" - R5R5

r

-0.56***

I

1 (-0.56***) -0.66*** (-0.63***) -0.35** E7L7 0.52**' (0.56') : A ^ I ( A ^ 0.34" L7S7

i

0.47*** (0.54") i A ^ ! ( A ^

1

A ^ - R7S7 -0.40" (-0 .4 4 '") -0 .7 1 '" (-0 .6 6 "’) ! -0.26* - R7R7 -0.41" 1 (-0.45 ' ) -0.70*** (-0.66***) -0.29* -

All other filters -

1

A ^ -

Table 5-8: C orrelation between greylevel histogram statistics and Spectral and M atched-Filter algorithm s and reproducibility. R eproducibility analysis not undertaken because correlation w ith BMD insufficient to m eet m inim um level (r>0.5). N=62. */;<0.05, **p<0.01, ***/?<0.001, N S = Non-Significant. NOF =

Neck of Fem ur.

5.4 Discussion

In this chapter, 12 different algorithms were tested as methods o f analysing trabecular patterns

changes caused by osteoporosis. Bone mineral density estimates were used as a surrogate for

osteoporosis since bone mass and cancellous architecture are lost simultaneously in osteoporosis

- which it is hypothesized cause distinct changes in the trabecular pattern. Each o f the

algorithms applied here has, in general, more than one “feature” which may describe texture and

each algorithm has pre-processing and/or analysis parameters to be set. The highest significant

correlation between the TA features and BMD are quoted here. The reproducibility and validity

o f textural features was also considered.

W ith the large search space o f algorithms, features and parameters, it has been

necessary to concentrate on those features that provide the m ost powerful method o f describing

osteoporotic trabecular changes. The first stage o f isolating these features is to select only

algorithms which relate significantly to the disease process as measured (indirectly) by BMD.

Those algorithms for which a peak correlation can be established above an arbitrary correlation

threshold o f (i.e. |r|>0.5) were then submitted to reproducibility tests. The tests used in this

chapter do not determine reproducibility absolutely, but they do established whether or not an

algorithm is reproducible in the sense o f the same radiograph digitized at different times gives

the same results.

From these tests I isolated 8 features which were both reproducible and have a

sufficiently high correlation with femoral neck BMD. Face Validity support for the textural

features was then considered. The ACSE(90:7), ACSE(90.T 1) IDM(90:7), fconO) features were

all found to correlated with BMD at angles and displacements associated with trabecular line­

like features, which can be regarded as sufficient face validity support. M oreover, the nature o f

the correlations suggests changes in the trabecular pattern that are consistent with the visual

changes, i.e. an osteoporotic loss o f trabecular textural strength and textural contrast. The local

loss o f trabecular line-like structures results in an image with has less directionality on a local

level.

The fractal signature however, it can be argued, is too large to be a descriptor o f

trabecular texture. The fractal signature size range puts it into the range o f loss trabecular group

areas and a textural descriptor o f trabecular group losses could provide additional textural

information about the osteoporosis progression not seen in the other algorithms.

Some textural features were excluded from subsequent analysis by considering other

factors o f the texture analysis including the image greylevel statistics. It is clear from the data

that there is a statistical link between the image greylevel statistics (mean and standard

deviation) and most textural features. However, accounting for this in a partial correlation

framework does not, in general, “explain” the link between the trabecular texture and BMD.

One can thus conclude that the texture is more than a simple brightness or contrast related

phenomenon, and that the link is likely to be an indirect statistical link (i.e. not causal). It should

be noted that the strong correlations between the NGTDM fcon feature and greylevel mean is

suspicious but does not account for the link between fcon and BMD.

Some textural features were excluded from further analysis on the basis o f Face

V alidity which requires that the textural properties described m ust be physically meaningful.

This is true o f the Co-occurrence M atrix features Contrast, Correlation, Energy and Entropy

Related documents