Back

Automatic Landmark Detection of Human Back Surface from Depth Images via Deep Learning

Delgarmi, M.; Heravi, H.; Rahimpour Jounghani, A.; Shahrezie, A.; Ebrahimi, A.; Shamsi, M.

2021-03-08 bioengineering
10.1101/2021.02.04.429842 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Studying human postural structure is one of the challenging issues among scholars and physicians. The spine is known as the central axis of the body, and due to various genetic and environmental reasons, it could suffer from deformities that cause physical dysfunction and correspondingly reduce peoples quality of life. Radiography is the most common method for detecting these deformities and requires monitoring and follow-up until full treatment; however, it frequently exposes the patient to X-rays and ionization and as a result, cancer risk is increased in the patient and could be highly dangerous for children or pregnant women. To prevent this, several solutions have been proposed using topographic data analysis of the human back surface. The purpose of this research is to provide an entirely safe and non-invasive method to examine the spiral structure and its deformities. Hence, it is attempted to find the exact location of anatomical landmarks on the human back surface, which provides useful and practical information about the status of the human postural structure to the physician. In this study, using Microsoft Kinect sensor, the depth images from the human back surface of 105 people were recorded and, our proposed approach - Deep convolution neural network-was used as a model to estimate the location of anatomical landmarks. In network architecture, two learning processes, including landmark position and affinity between the two associated landmarks, are successively performed in two separate branches. This is a bottom-up approach; thus, the runtime complexity is considerably reduced, and then the resulting anatomical points are evaluated concerning manual landmarks marked by the operator as the benchmark. Our results showed that 86.9% of PDJ and 80% of PCK. According to the results, this study was more effective than other methods with more than thousands of training data.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
2
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
3
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.9%
6
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
8
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
9
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
10
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
11
Neurocomputing
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
12
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
13
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
14
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
15
Physics in Medicine & Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
16
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.7%
19
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
20
Plant Phenomics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
21
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Journal of Biophotonics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
23
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
24
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%