IRMA-International.org: Creator of Knowledge
Information Resources Management Association
Advancing the Concepts & Practices of Information Resources Management in Modern Organizations

Assessment of Kidney Function Using Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI Techniques

Assessment of Kidney Function Using Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI Techniques
View Sample PDF
Author(s): Melih S. Aslan (University of Louisville, USA), Hossam Abd El Munim (University of Louisville, USA), Aly A. Farag (University of Louisville, USA)and Mohamed Abou El-Ghar (University of Mansoura, Egypt)
Copyright: 2010
Pages: 20
Source title: Biomedical Image Analysis and Machine Learning Technologies: Applications and Techniques
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): Fabio A. Gonzalez (National University of Colombia, Colombia )and Eduardo Romero (National University of Colombia, Colombia )
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-956-4.ch010

Purchase

View Assessment of Kidney Function Using Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI Techniques on the publisher's website for pricing and purchasing information.

Abstract

Graft failure of kidneys after transplantation is most often the consequence of the acute rejection. Hence, early detection of the kidney rejection is important for the treatment of renal diseases. In this chapter, authors introduce a new automatic approach to classify normal kidney function from kidney rejection using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). The kidney has three regions named the cortex, medulla, and pelvis. In their experiment, they use the medulla region because it has specific responses to DCE-MRI that are helpful to identify kidney rejection. In the authors’ process they segment the kidney using the level sets method. They then employ several classification methods such as the Euclidean distance, Mahalanobis distance, and least square support vector machines (LS-SVM). The authors’preliminary results are very encouraging and reproducibility of the results was achieved for 55 clinical data sets. The classification accuracy, diagnostic sensitivity, and diagnostic specificity are 84%, 75%, and 96%, respectively.

Related Content

Aswathy Ravikumar, Harini Sriraman. © 2023. 18 pages.
Ezhilarasie R., Aishwarya N., Subramani V., Umamakeswari A.. © 2023. 10 pages.
Sangeetha J.. © 2023. 13 pages.
Manivannan Doraipandian, Sriram J., Yathishan D., Palanivel S.. © 2023. 14 pages.
T. Kavitha, Malini S., Senbagavalli G.. © 2023. 36 pages.
Uma K. V., Aakash V., Deisy C.. © 2023. 23 pages.
Alageswaran Ramaiah, Arun K. S., Yathishan D., Sriram J., Palanivel S.. © 2023. 17 pages.
Body Bottom