Automated prognosis analysis for traumatic brain injury CT images

Proceedings - 3rd IAPR Asian Conference on Pattern Recognition, ACPR 2015

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 386-390

  Gong, Tianxia ^a   Ambastha, Abhinit Kumar ^a   Tan, Chew Lim ^a   Su, Bolan ^b   Lim, Tchoyoson C C ^c  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b INSTITUTE FOR INFOCOMM RESEARCH   (Singapore)

^c TAN TOCK SENG HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN; DECISION TREES; FEATURE EXTRACTION; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; PATTERN RECOGNITION;

FEATURE VECTORS; FIXED NUMBERS; GLASGOW OUTCOME SCALE; OVERALL ACCURACIES; PROGNOSIS MODELS; RANDOM FORESTS; TRAINING AND TESTING; TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84978796154     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/ACPR.2015.7486531     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

1. J. Barrett and N. Keat. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics, 24(6):1679-1691, 2004.
2. L. Breiman. Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1):5-32, 2001.
3. T. Chan. Computer aided detection of small acute intracranial hemorrhage on computer tomography of brain. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 31(4-5):285-298, June-July 2007.
4. H. Feichtinger and T. Strohmer. Gabor Analysis and Algorithms: Theory and Applications. Birkhauser, 1998.
5. B. Jennett and M. Bond. Assessment OF Outcome After Severe Brain Damage A Practical Scale. The Lancet, 305(7905):480-484, Mar. 1975.
6. Lawrence F. Marshall, Sharon Bowers Marshall, Melville R. Klauber, Marjan van Berkum Clark, Howard M. Eisenberg, John A. Jane, Thomas G. Luerssen, Anthony Marmarou, and Mary A. Foulkes. A new classification of head injury based on computerized tomography. Journal of Neurosurgery, 75(1s):S14-S20, June 1991.
7. A. I. R. Maas, A. Marmarou, G. D. Murray, S. G. M. Teasdale, and E. W. Steyerberg. Prognosis and clinical trial design in traumatic brain injury: the IMPACT study. Journal of neurotrauma, 24(2):232-8, Feb. 2007.
8. N. A. Mushkudiani, C. W. P. M. Hukkelhoven, A. V. Hernandez, G. D. Murray, S. C. Choi, A. I. R. Maas, and E. W. Steyerberg. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 61(4):331-43, Apr. 2008.
9. P. Perel, M. Arango, T. Clayton, P. Edwards, E. Komolafe, S. Poccock, I. Roberts, H. Shakur, E. Steyerberg, and S. Yutthakasemsunt. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 336(7641):425-9, Feb. 2008.
10. P. Perel, P. Edwards, R. Wentz, and I. Roberts. Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 6:38, Jan. 2006.
11. B. Su, T. A. Dinh, A. K. Ambastha, T. Gong, T. Silander, S. Lu, T. C. C. Lim, B. C. Pang, C. K. Lee, T.-Y. Leong, and C. L. Tan. Automated Prediction of Glasgow Outcome Scale for Traumatic Brain Injury. In Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 2014 22nd International Conference on, pages 3245-3250, 2014.
12. E. L. Yuh, S. R. Cooper, A. R. Ferguson, and G. T. Manley. Quantitative CT improves outcome prediction in acute traumatic brain injury. Journal of neurotrauma, 29(5):735-46, Mar. 2012.