Comparative Analysis of Ultrasonography and MicroCT Imaging for Organ Size Evaluation in Mice

TL;DR

The study compares ultrasound and microCT for measuring organ sizes in mice, finding both accurate but ultrasound faster, though microCT is better for heart measurements.

Contribution

The study introduces a comparative evaluation of two imaging techniques for organ volume quantification in mice, highlighting their strengths and limitations.

Findings

Both microCT and ultrasound are accurate for organ volume measurement, but ultrasound is faster.

Manual segmentation on microCT is the only accurate method for heart volume.

The three-diameter method is suitable for ellipsoid organs, while manual segmentation is better for irregular structures.

Abstract

In this work, the authors compared microCT and in vivo ultrasonography in terms of accuracy and efficacy for measuring the volume of various organs in mice. Two quantification protocols were applied: ellipsoidal volume measuring maximum diameters in all three axes in both imaging systems and manual delineation of organ borders in microCT studies. The results were compared with ex vivo volumes. In general, both imaging techniques and quantification protocols are accurate, but ultrasound is faster in both acquisition and analysis. The only accurate method for heart volume measurement is manual segmentation on microCT. For the ovary, none of the techniques and protocols had a positive correlation with ex vivo volume. The three-diameter method can be used for ellipsoid organs because of its rapidity, but for more irregular structures, manual segmentation is recommended, although it is time-consuming.

Figures