Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Apr 3;15(4):e0230259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230259

AVATREE: An open-source computational modelling framework modelling Anatomically Valid Airway TREE conformations

Stavros Nousias 1,*, Evangelia I Zacharaki 1, Konstantinos Moustakas 1
Editor: Fang-Bao Tian2
PMCID: PMC7122715  PMID: 32243444

Abstract

This paper presents AVATREE, a computational modelling framework that generates Anatomically Valid Airway tree conformations and provides capabilities for simulation of broncho-constriction apparent in obstructive pulmonary conditions. Such conformations are obtained from the personalized 3D geometry generated from computed tomography (CT) data through image segmentation. The patient-specific representation of the bronchial tree structure is extended beyond the visible airway generation depth using a knowledge-based technique built from morphometric studies. Additional functionalities of AVATREE include visualization of spatial probability maps for the airway generations projected on the CT imaging data, and visualization of the airway tree based on local structure properties. Furthermore, the proposed toolbox supports the simulation of broncho-constriction apparent in pulmonary diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. AVATREE is provided as an open-source toolbox in C++ and is supported by a graphical user interface integrating the modelling functionalities. It can be exploited in studies of gas flow, gas mixing, ventilation patterns and particle deposition in the pulmonary system, with the aim to improve clinical decision making.

1 Introduction

In the past years, a multitude of studies paves the way for the generation of patient-specific computational models of lung structure and function. Early studies focused on airway morphometry generating the first human bronchial trees models [1]. These studies employed casts to decipher the relationship between bronchi lengths, branching angles and airway diameters [2]. On this basis, researchers built and validated a simulation model of airway morphogenesis from generation 1 to generation 23 [3, 4]. Deterministic parameterized bronchial tree generation algorithms used as single input the location of the first one or two generations and the lung volume, extracted directly from computed tomography, thus constituting the core of patient-specific modelling [57]. Personalized boundary conditions based on diagnostic imaging were combined with generative approaches and lumped models of resistive trees [8, 9] constituting the state of the art in pulmonary system modelling. Later studies incorporated patient-specific boundary conditions into computational fluid dynamics to examine flow regimes, wall stresses and aerosol deposition. In the same direction, modelling the airflow in cases of constrictive conditions, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) became feasible with the aforementioned approaches. Wall constriction and remodelling combined with patient-specific boundary conditions allowed the quantification of breathing conditions for asthmatic patients. Motivated by these advancements we introduce an end-to-end modelling approach that produces Anatomically Valid Airway tree conformations(AVATREE). Such conformations are adapted to personalized geometry and boundary conditions derived from diagnostic imaging and well-established airway extraction methods. Specifically, this study aims to provide an open-source simulation framework to (i) exploit imaging data so as to provide patient-specific representations (ii) perform structural analysis (iii) extend the segmented airway tree to predict the airway branching across the whole lung volume (iv) visualize probabilistic confidence maps of generation data (v) simulate bronchoconstriction to (vi) access patient-specific airway functionality (vii) perform fluid dynamics simulation in patient-specific boundary conditions to access pulmonary function.

1.1 Background & related work

While early studies focused mainly on quantitative modeling approaches to gain insight into the lung function without an explicit link to the lung’s structure, with the advancements in computing power and the current medical imaging capabilities, the interest in the simulation of lung function based on personalized geometric models that incorporate the essential structural features of the lungs, has significantly increased [10]. By now, many studies propose the development and adoption of mathematical and geometrical models to study the structure of the airways and pulmonary physiology. Some address the problem of airway tree segmentation from CT images, while others analyze the branching patterns and bifurcations through airway morphometry or mathematical modelling. In this section, we briefly present representative approaches and introduce definitions for the different computational steps required during airway and pulmonary structure modelling and simulation. Airway segmentation, bronchial morphometry and tree branching, mathematical models of bifurcating distributing systems are required to derive patient-specific structural and functional modelling approaches.

Early studies on airway morphometry [1113] used casts of human lungs to study branching patterns and the relation between airway lengths and diameters. The most commonly used conducting airway model has been Weibel’s symmetric model “A” [14]. The airway position has also been described by Horsfield order [1] and Strahler order [15]. Later on, with the advancement of medical imaging techniques, the extraction of airway structure and lung volume from imaging started to play an important role in the analysis of pulmonary diseases. A literature review on the analysis of lung CTs, including segmentation of the various pulmonary structures, can be found in [16], while a comparative study of automated and semi-automated segmentation methods of the airway tree from CT images was presented in [17]. Overall, segmentation approaches can be classified into methods based on morphology [18], morphological aggregation [19], voxel classification [20], adaptive region growing with constraints [2128], tube similarity [29, 30] and gradient vector flow [31]. Several implementations of the aforementioned approaches are available in the literature. The tube segmentation framework [30] utilizing gradient vector flow [31] and the FAST heterogeneous medical image computing and visualization framework [32] utilizing the seeded region growing approach. AVATREE employs airway segmentation as a first step to obtain the personalized structure in the first generations, while the more advanced generations are simulated based on a tree extension algorithm.

Furthermore, mathematical models of the airway structure were formulated to derive branching and structural rules. Deterministic mathematical models of bifurcating distributing systems were examined [3] setting the basis for modelling bronchial tree branching as a function of available lung space [4]. Deriving airway diameter as a relation of branching features facilitates full determination of the geometry given skeletal representations. Several studies mention scaling properties [3336] for the airway diameters so that the average diameter D of a given airway at generation G is the product of the diameter of the trachea D0. Furthermore, Kamiya et al. [37] validated the relation between airway diameter and branching angles and, Kitaoka et al. [2] proposed a branching model allowing the prediction of the relationship between branching angle and flow rate and between airway length and diameter. Experimental studies verified the validity of the aforementioned methods. For the surface reconstruction of airway surface Tawhai et al. [5, 6, 38] employed fitting cubic Hermite surfaces as described in [39]. The study of Hegedus et al. [40] generated surface models of idealized bifurcation through mathematical modelling rigorously extending the previous definitions [41]. The aforementioned studies are relevant to our approach. To avoid the definition of special rules in the reconstruction of the surface of bifurcations we define the same boundary conditions, as the Poisson-reconstructed surface of a sampled point cloud.

Towards patient-specific structural and functional modelling, Tawhai et al. and Lin et al. [6, 42] studied the imposition of patient-specific boundary conditions to generate 1-dimensional and three-dimensional computational models taking into consideration the effects of turbulence. Towards the same direction, a review article [10] provides insight into multiscale finite element models of lung structure and function aiming towards a computational framework for bridging the spatial scales from molecular to the whole organ. Bordas et al. [7] developed an image analysis and modelling pipeline applied to healthy and asthmatic patient scans to produce complete personalized airway models to the acinar level incorporating CT acquisition, lung and lobar segmentation, airway segmentation and centerline extraction, algorithmic generation of distal airways and zero-dimensional models. Their implementation and results were included into Chaste framework [43], an open-source framework to facilitate computational modelling in heart, lung and soft tissue simulations. Towards the same direction, Montesantos et al. [44] presented a detailed algorithm for the generation of an individualized 3D deterministic model of the conducting part of the human tracheobronchial tree. With respect to the aforementioned studies, our work focuses on generating surface meshes of extended patient-based bronchial trees, suitable for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, along with a toolbox to simulate constriction of the airways.

Several authors employed CFD to investigate flow regimes in the human lung. In our previous work [45, 46] we performed narrowing deformations in CT extracted lung geometries to simulate constrictive conditions. Other studies in the same category include simulations for CT-based patient specific geometries [4752], particle deposition [5356], constrictive pulmonary diseases [45, 46, 5759], micro-airway flow regimes [57], turbulence modelling [60], four-dimensional (space and time) dynamic simulations [61], ventilation heterogeneity [57], airflow in the acinar region [62]. Validation studies conducted by Montesantos et al. [63] include morphometric studies on healthy and asthmatic patients providing among others, measurements of branching angles, length and diameter of airways as a function of generation. Such measurements are employed by our study for macroscopic validation of the generated trees.

1.2 Motivation and contributions

The objective in this field of research is to enable the prediction of gas flow [51, 55], gas mixing [64], heat transfer [65], particle deposition [46, 54, 66, 67], and ventilation distribution [68] in the pulmonary system. Lung ventilation patterns prediction [69, 70] can provide grounds for performance and fatigue estimation in high-frequency ventilation cases [71], disease severity quantification, such as in asthma and COPD, and give insight into drug delivery or even in transfer of harmful particulates. Motivated by the recent advances in this field and building upon previous work [46], we developed an end-to-end approach facilitating pulmonary structural modelling that is based on the definition of the personalised boundary conditions required for fluid dynamics simulations. Specifically, in this work we

  • present an open-source simulation framework that utilizes imaging data to provide patient-based representations of the structural models of the bronchial tree,

  • build and extend 1-dimensional graph representations of the bronchial tree,

  • generate 3D surface models of extended bronchial tree models appropriate for CFD simulations

  • generate probabilistic visualization of airway generations projected on the personalized CT imaging data, 2

  • perform validation studies and provide comparison with relevant state-of-the-art approaches

  • provide an open-source toolbox in C++ and a graphical user interface integrating modelling functionalities.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 analyzes the individual components of AVATREE, Section 3 commends on the results of our approach while Section 4 concludes this paper.

2 Materials and methods

The processing pipeline uses as input CT images and is presented in Fig 1. Airway segmentation is applied to the imaging data to extract a 3D surface mesh and a 1-dimensional representation of the airways. We employ the extended 1D graph to derive visualization of probabilistic airway generation labels in the space of the subjects’ anatomy as defined by the CT images and to generate a 3D surface defining personalized boundary conditions, that can be employed as input for computational fluid dynamics simulations.

Fig 1. Processing pipeline of AVATREE.

Fig 1

2.1 Segmentation and airways centerline extraction

The input of the presented approach is unlabeled CT scans required to extract bronchial tree and airways structural features. For the definition of the lung volume, CT-based lung segmentation and annotation is required. For lung segmentation we employ the FAST heterogeneous medical image computing and visualization framework [32] is employed. The result of lung segmentation process is a binary mask visualized in Fig 1. As a next step, we perform further processing of the segmentation result to distinguish left and right lungs. The process is described below:

  1. A second region growing takes place starting from a single random point inside any of the segmented region only if all its immediate neighbours bare the same label.

  2. To advance the region growing front, all points neighbouring a candidate voxel must not include background voxel. This region is given a new label.

  3. Steps 1 and 2 are repeated for the other lung volume. The result is an image with three labels(background and two lung volumes).

  4. To distinguish left or right we employ the directed graph extracted from the main airways and follow the generic rule according to which the topological distance the topological distance between the bifurcations of the first and the second generation is longer in the left lung.

The next step involves the segmentation of the first generations of the airways that are identifiable in the patient’s CT image, but any available airway tree segmentation method can be also applied. For this purpose we investigated two algorithms. The first algorithm is the gradient vector flow [29, 31] which achieved high accuracy with low false-positive rate (only 1.44%) in a comparative study [17] in the context of the EXACT09 airway segmentation challenge. The second is a standard and stable approach based on seeded region growing [72]. The former is included in the tube segmentation framework [30] and the latter in FAST heterogeneous medical image computing and visualization framework [32].

Let’s denote with I(x), I:ΩR, the gray level 3D medical image, where x = (x, y, z), x ∈ Ω is a voxel in the spatial domain ΩR3 of the volumetric imaging data. The output of the segmentation algorithm for the airways is a binary image SA of equal size with I. Likewise, the output of the segmentation algorithm for the lung volumes is a binary image SL of equal size with I. The result is presented in Figs 1 and 2, and utilized to generate prediction of full bronchial tree structures based on personalized lung volumes. To derive the centerline from SA a multitude of methods is provided in the literature including skeletonization or thinning. Fig 2 presents the up-to-four generations centerline of the airways.

Fig 2. Extraction of airway surface and centerline.

Fig 2

This 1D representation of the bronchial tree is modelled by an undirected graph G={V,E} where V is the set of vertices and E is the set of edges. Each vertex, indexed by i, can be represented as a point vi = (xi, yi, zi). We denote the function N(vi) yielding the set of vertices indices neighbouring vertex i. The undirected graph is extracted by FAST framework [32] and converted into a directed graph with the following process. Initially, the graph starting point is defined as the one closest to the air inlet, i.e. the oral cavity or the trachea. Given index y the starting point for G we generate the directed tree GD. We define as distal point the vertex of the graph with no children and distal branch the edge containing a distal point.

Algorithm 1 Detection of inlet in undirected graph

Input: Graph G

Output: Index of graph inlet y

1 procedure Derivation of graph inlet

2  Initialize set P=[|]

3  for each vertex vi do

4   if |N(vi)| > 2 then

5    for each nN(vi) do

6     Initialize empty set K={i,n}

7     while N(vn)<3 do

8      for each mN(vn) do

9       if mP then KKm

10     PPK

11  Kmax=max1i|P|Length(Ki)

12  yKmax|Kmax|

2.2 Generation of extended bronchial tree

Since higher generations cannot be identified from the personal imaging data, we extend the bronchial tree based on population-wise empirical observations. Initially the directed graph generated by the procedure explained in subsection 2.1 is pruned. Specifically, the extracted 1-dimensional representation is processed to include all the bifurcations located at the end of a given generation so as to facilitate the volume filling algorithm. Fig 1 shows the result of pruning where all generations after the nth have been pruned. The corrected tree is subsequently used for the bronchial tree extension. The generation process utilizes the bronchial tree extension algorithm initially proposed by Tawhai et al. [4] and later improved by Bordas et al. [7] while introducing a few safeguards to allow maximal space utilization. The bronchial tree extension algorithm can be described by the following steps.

For each lung subvolume SLL and SLR:

  1. Generate a point cloud sampling the subvolume with a uniform random process. Fig 3 depicts the uniform sampling of each lung subvolume with a total number of n = 30000 points [4, 6].

  2. Assign a seed point to the closest distal branch as presented in Fig 3.

  3. Calculate the center of mass of the sampled points as presented in Fig 3.
    c=piPpi|P| (1)
  4. Employ principal component analysis (PCA) on the set of sampled points to define the splitting plane. The motivation for employing PCA is to address a space utilization aspect. The direction of the eigenvector with the greatest norm indicates the dimension of the data with the greatest variance denoting the direction where more space is available for the branches to grow. Picking a plane so that the resulting bounding box demonstrates the lowest possible variation, inhibits the appearance of very long branches. Given data points D = [p1 p1 p1pn], A = DDT is the auto-correlation matrix. Direct singular value decomposition yields A = UΣUT where U = [u1 u2 u3]. Then the largest eigenvector is defined as um = max1≤i≤3 ui. Given the vector d expressing the direction of the distal airway, the splitting plane is described by center of mass c and vector d × [d × um]. The selected plane maximizes the available space for each new subdivision. Fig 4 presents a splitting plane splitting the set of points into two subdivisions.

  5. Calculate the centroid of each new subdivision.

  6. For each centroid define line segment starting from seed point extending 40% of the distance towards centroid of the subdivision.

  7. If a newly created branch is smaller that 2mm, it is considered as terminal.

  8. The process is repeated until no seed points remain.

  9. Any branch found outside the lung volume is removed along with children branches.

Fig 3. Definition of center of mass (orange dot) and distal branches (yellow dots).

Fig 3

Fig 4. Definition of splitting plane for bifurcating distributive structures.

Fig 4

It is important to denote that the presented pipeline enables the generation of a tunable user-defined number of generations. If n is the number of desired generations, we set stopping criteria, in the extension of the bronchial tree until 2(n+1) bifurcations have been reached. The resulting 1D representation (Fig 5) predicts the location of the bifurcating distributive [3] structure given the patient-specific available space. The outcome of the volume filling algorithm will be used later to create maps that express the probability of a voxel to belong to a certain generation. This information when projected on CT slices can be a very informative and powerful clinical decision support tool.

Fig 5. Extended bronchial tree (a) 9 generations, (b) 12 generations.

Fig 5

2.3 Spatial probability maps of branching properties

The location of each new generation branch is calculated as explained before and provides a random sample out of all possible bronchial tree conformations. In this step of the proposed framework we produce probabilistic maps for each generation branch that provide estimates of the spatial probability to encounter a certain generation at some point of the imaging data. Such a probabilistic model allows to optimize clinical decision making by accounting for the branches’ distributional uncertainty.

Let’s denote with Wg(x), I:ΩR, the probability map for generation g where x = (x, y, z), x ∈ Ω is a voxel in the spatial domain ΩR3 of the volumetric imaging data. Then

Wg(x)=1σ2πe-(d)2/2σ2 (2)

where d is the distance of voxel x to the closest edge of G labeled with generation g. Parameter σ is set experimentally to σ = 1. The extracted spatial map is overlaid on the CT scans, as shown in Fig 6, providing insightful visualization of spatial likelihood for each branching generation.

Fig 6. Visualization of fourth generation probability map.

Fig 6

First column corresponds to axial view. Second column corresponds to coronal view. Third column corresponds to sagital view. The first row depicts raw imaging data, the second row presents the probabilistic maps for second generation, the third row presents the probabilistic maps for second generation and the fourth row presents the probabilistic maps for second generation.

2.4 Surface generation on predicted 1-dimensional representation

The extracted 3D geometries are required to conduct studies on computational fluid dynamics, particle transfer and deposition, ventilation, stress analysis and deformation simulations. Marching cubes algorithm [73] is a very well established method implemented in FAST [32] allowing the generation of 3D geometric models from airway segmentation label maps. The constriction simulation method aims to generate 3D tubular surface structures with smaller diameters. To this end, Laplacian surface contraction offers a solution that deforms the geometry pushing the vertices towards the direction of the inward normals.

The extension of the extracted centerline generates a predictive representation of the bronchial tree given the available space. However, for the outcome of space-filling algorithms to be useful in fluid dynamics simulation, particle deposition simulation or stress finite element analysis based studies, the boundary conditions in the form of triangular 3D meshes need to be defined. Initially, as a simplified approach, to define the diameter of each generation we can employ the power law consistent with Murray’s law of symmetric branching [33, 34].

dz=d0×2-z/3 (3)

where d0 denotes the branch diameter of the trachea and dz the branch diameter for generation z.

Furthermore, if we take into account that each branch demonstrates different branching angle and diameter properties, the relation between airway diameter (d) and branching angles (θ) is based on the following rules validated by Kamiya et al. [37] and Kitaoka et al. [2]:

d02=d12+d22 (4)
d02sin(θ1+θ2)=d12sinθ1=d22sinθ2 (5)

where the index 0 stands for the parent branch, and the indices 1 and 2 for the two children branches, respectively.

To reconstruct the lung surface we employ a point cloud sampling approach as input for Poisson surface reconstruction. The outcome is a smooth surface with smooth transitions instead of abrupt transitions in the intersection with the original tubular meshes. The tubular-shaped point cloud is sampled using a uniform random distribution. A clean-up step, visualized in Fig 7, ensures that no point can be found in distance less than the prescribed diameter of every available branch. The resulting point cloud is used to compute normals. A bilateral normal smoothing [74] function prepares the point cloud for Poisson surface reconstruction [75]. smoothing the point normals. This step facilitates the surface reconstruction in bifurcations and transitional parts. Furthermore, since the directed graph is extracted where each point on the centerline corresponds to a point on the lung surface it is possible to further deform the surface with a custom function or pattern. The generated surface for seven and ten generations is presented in Fig 8.

Fig 7. Outcome of point cloud generation process.

Fig 7

Extra refinements remove the inner points facilitating normal estimation for Poisson surface reconstruction.

Fig 8. Generation of surface from the extended bronchial tree centerline.

Fig 8

2.5 Simulation of constrictive pulmonary diseases’ effect on airway tree

This section aims to provide the methodology for simulation of broncho-constriction allowing to subsequently estimate the dynamic behaviour of the lung airways in the case of an exacerbation event. A bronchial tree 3D geometry is the input for this process yielding as output contracted airways. The proposed geometry contraction procedure is presented by Nousias et al. [45] and Lalas et al. [46] and is an extension of the work of Au et al. [76] facilitating a Laplacian smoothing process that shifts vertices along the estimated curvature normal direction. The airway geometric model consists of connected triangles forming the boundary conditions. Each triangular mesh M can be described as M={V,E,F} where V is the set of vertices, E is the set of edges and F is the set of faces constituting the 3D surface. Each vertex i can be represented as a point vi = (xi, yi, zi), ∀i = 1, 2, ⋯, N. For each face fi, ∀i = 1, 2, ⋯, l we denote the centroid

mi=vi1+vi2+vi33,i=1,2,,l (6)

The outward unit normal nmi to the face fi (located at the centroid mi) is calculated as nmi:

nmi=(vi2-vi1)×(vi3-vi1)(vi2-vi1)×(vi3-vi1),i=1,,l (7)

where vi1,vi2,vi3 are the vertices corresponding to face fi. Given LRN×N the curvature flow Laplacian operator, the product δ = LV approximates the inward curvature flow normals [77]. The motivation for employing the curvature flow Laplacian operator [78] on the mesh is that its output is not affected by mesh density. Specifically,

δ=LV=[δ1T,δ2T,,δNT]T,δi=-4Aiκini (8)

where Ai is the one-ring area, κi is the local curvature and ni is the inward curvature flow normal of the ith vertex.

The positions of the vertices satisfying LV = 0 result in a zero volume string-like mesh and can be used to simulate mesh contraction. However, since such an optimization problem has more than one solutions, further constraints are required [76]. Introducing weighting matrices WHRN×N WLRN×N can smoothly move vertex positions VR3×n towards the direction of the inward unit normal by iteratively solving the following minimization problem

V^=arg minV{WLLV2+WHV-Va} (9)

where VaR3×N corresponds to the vertex positions before the contraction at each iteration.

The weighting matrices WH and WL regulate the mesh contraction and mesh attraction, respectively. Initially, we set them to WL=k·A·I and WH = I, where IRN×N is the identity matrix, k a double constant experimentally tuned to 10−3 and A the average face area of the model.

Eq (9) can be expressed as

[WLLWH]·V=[0WHV] (10)

The analytical solution can be formulated as

V=(ATA)-1Ab (11)

where matrices A and b are given by

A=[WLLWH],b=[0WHV] (12)

After each iteration t we update the contraction and inflation weights to be used in iteration t + 1 so that WLt+1=sLWLt and WH,it=WH,i0A0iAti, where A0i and Ati are the original and the current one-ring area respectively. The Laplacian matrix for iteration t + 1, Lt+1 is also recomputed. On these grounds, to simulate broncho-constriction we require to reduce the airway diameter to a predefined level of narrowing is reached. This level is defined by certain termination criteria [45, 46]. Thus, a metric is required that measures the diameter of the bronchi under process. To estimate the degree of contraction of the airway’s geometry after each iteration, we employ a shape diameter function (SDF) based scheme [79] implemented in [80] that evaluates the local volume based on the estimated local diameter assigned to each face of the mesh, also known as raw SDF values. Measuring the volume before and after the Laplacian contraction iteration can set the termination criteria. Fig 9 presents a simulation of constrictive pulmonary conditions.

Fig 9. Simulation of constrictive pulmonary conditions.

Fig 9

3 Results

3.1 Dataset description

For the evaluation of the aforementioned approaches we employed the dataset provided by VESSEL12 (VESsel SEgmentation in the Lung) challenge [81] and EXACT09 [17]. The VESSEL dataset is comprised of 20 anonymized scans in Meta (MHD/raw) format. The latter consists of 75 completely anonymized chest CT scans contributed by eight different institutions, acquired with several different CT scanner brands and models, using a variety of scanning protocols and reconstruction parameters. The conditions of the scanned subjects varied widely, ranging from healthy volunteers to patients showing severe abnormalities in the airways or lung parenchyma. Fig 6a to 6c present imaging instances of CT slices across the axial, coronal and sagittal planes. The generation of the initial airway surface, lung volume and 1-dimensional representation are performed using the FAST framework [32].

3.2 Structural modelling and validation

Our simulation framework processes the initial tree centerline and generates a structural estimation given the first three to four available generation and their morphometric characteristics i.e., lengths and diameters. To facilitate the comparison with morphometric data, we employed a publicly available dataset provided by Montesantos et al. [44] labelled as pone.0168026.s001. For the sake of self-completeness, the authors of [44] provided morphometric data extracted from HRCT images acquired at the University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as a part of study described in [82, 83]. Data from seven healthy subjects and six patients with moderate or persistent asthma were included in the dataset. Asthmatic patients patients were diagnosed exacerbation-free for at least one month and were male non-smokers.

A Sensation 64 slice HRCT scanner (Siemens, Enlargen, Germany) was utilized to capture 3D images from mouth to the base of the lungs. Subjects were posed in supine position and were instructed to perform slow exhalation. Groundtruth data for the development of bronchial tree models in [44] were extracted by Pulmonary Workstation 2 Software including 3 to 4 generations in the upper lobes and 6 to 7 generations in the lower lobes. For each subject, a morphology file includes the total lung volume of the subject lung (in cm3) and the percent volume per lobe while a translation file contains the airway connectivity, starting from the trachea to the terminal nodes. We used the generated trees from [44] to validate our approach and compare our results with relevant literature findings. Specifically, we compared the distributions of diameters, airway lengths and branching angles for each generation and the total number of airways for Horsfield and Strahler orders.

In total 31204 acini were calculated being in agreement with the results reported by [6, 44]. Figs 10 and 11 present a comparison in terms of the number of airways for each level of Strahler and Horsfield orders. This comparison confirms that our model comes into agreement with pone.0168026.s001. Furthermore, distributions of airway lengths, branching angles and diameters were plotted for each generation, for AVATREE and pone.0168026.s001 [44]. Airway lengths maintain the same exponential decay pattern for both models. Differences appear in generations 1 to 4 that are distinctively defined by body size and anatomical features. The distribution of branching angles of our model is also confirmed by pone.0168026.s001 [44] maintaining a nearly linear decay with a very small rate. The distributions of diameters per generation are also observed to follow an exponential decay pattern. Both our model and pone.0168026.s001 [44] decay similarly after generation 4 validating the morphometric characteristics of the airway trees generated by our approach. Figs 12 to 14 present the distribution of airway length, branching angle and diameter for each generation for AVATREE and for pone.0168026.s001 [44]. Table 1 presents and overview of quantitative macroscopic figures for AVATREE and relevant studies. Branching ratios (RBH, RBS), diameter ratios (RDH, RDS) and length ratios RLH, RLS) were calculated for Strahler and Horsfield ratios denoted as *S and *H respectively. Specifically, RBH, RDH and RLH were calculated equal to RBH = 1.74, RDH = 1.259 and RLH = 1.26±1.01. Montesantos et al. [44] reported RBH = 1.56, RDH = 1.115 and RLH = 1.13 respectively. Additionally, RBS, RDS and RLS were calculated equal to RBS = 2.35, RDS = 1.25 and RLS = 1.23±1.02 and are close to the figures provides by relative studies [1, 44] as Table 1 reveals. Likewise, rate of decline for diameters per generation RD was calculated to RD = 0.83±0.21, being in agreement to [44]. Average branching angle θ for our model was calculated to 32.44±28.95 comparable to [44] reporting a θ equal to 42.1±21.4. Finally, Figs 15 and 16 present bronchial tree 1-dimensional representations extended up to 12 and 23 generations respectively. Additionally, for both generated models the surface has been reconstructed for the first 7 generations.

Fig 10. Number of airways for each Strahler order for our model, “AVATREE”, and “pone.0168026.s001”.

Fig 10

Fig 11. Number of airways for each Horsfield order for our model, “AVATREE”, and “pone.0168026.s001”.

Fig 11

Fig 12. Distribution of airway lengths for each generation for AVATREE and pone.0168026.s001.

Fig 12

Fig 14. Distribution of diameters for each generation for AVATREE and pone.0168026.s001.

Fig 14

Table 1. Structural features comparison.

No of Diameter RBH RDH RLH RBS RDS RLS Mean θ
acini Rate of decline
AVATREE 31204 0.83±0.21 1.74 1.259 1.26±1.01 2.35 1.25 1.23±1.02 32.4488±28.95
Tawhai et al. [6] 29445 1.47 0.13 2.8 1.41 1.39
Horsfield et al. [1] 27992 2.54-2.81 1.5 1.55 37.28
Bordas et al. [7] 42.90±0.10
Montesantos et al. [44] 27763±7118.5 0.789±0.16 1.56 1.116 1.13 2.49 1.397 1.392 42.1±21.4

Fig 15. Estimation of bronchial tree for 12 generations.

Fig 15

Surface reconstruction was performed for the first 7 generations.

Fig 16. Estimation of bronchial tree for 23 generations.

Fig 16

Surface reconstruction was performed for the first 7 generations.

Fig 13. Distribution of branching angles for each generation for AVATREE and pone.0168026.s001.

Fig 13

3.3 Open-source library & Graphical User Interface

The presented components of AVATREE are provided as an open-source solution publicly available at (https://gitlab.com/LungModelling/avatree) accompanied by a graphical user interface (GUI). The implemented application programming interface (API) includes the following modules, a) input-output functionalities, b) 1-dimensional representation tools including centerline extraction, graph generation, derivation of graph node properties c) bronchial tree extension tools extending the 1-dimensional representation to the desired number of generations, d) 3D surface generation and processing tools and e) airway narrowing simulation tools.

The GUI, presented in Fig 17, employs the set of functionalities defined by AVATREE and is comprised of four panels, namely data input and output panel, area selection panel, segmentation panel and broncho-constriction simulation panel. Through the GUI the user can load a 3D model, select the area to be processed, as Fig 18 visualizes, and use the narrowing functionalities to reduce the airway diameter by the desired percentage. The amount of narrowing depends on the number of iterations and contraction weight multiplier. In Fig 18 an airway of the first generation was constricted by 66%. The deformed surface introduced into computational fluid dynamics can provide insight into the breathing pattern and drug delivery in asthmatic lungs [84]. In the segmentation panel, the surface faces can be classified based on local properties. The one illustrates the shape diameter function (SDF) [79], while the other one the 3D surface according to the generation number. The results are visualized in Fig 19.

Fig 17. User interface.

Fig 17

Fig 18. Broncho-constriction simulation.

Fig 18

Airway of second generation narrowed at 34% of original diameter.

Fig 19. Surface annotation with a) SDF function visualizing local diameter b) airway generation.

Fig 19

4 Conclusion

In this paper, we presented AVATREE, an end-to-end approach modeling the subject-specific airway tree that defines the personalized boundary conditions required for the simulation of pulmonary function. This particular personalization aspect refers to the extraction of the main airways and the lung volumes from imaging allowing the simulation of a personalized extended bronchial tree. The utter goal in this category of studies is to eventually predict gas flow and particle distribution in healthy and constricted bronchial trees. Modelling lung ventilation patterns can provide grounds for performance and fatigue estimation in high-frequency ventilation cases and give insight into drug delivery or even transfer of harmful particulates. Specifically, this work presents an open-source simulation framework that utilizes imaging data to provide patient-specific representations of the structural models of the bronchial tree. The extended 1-dimensional centerline facilitates the generic estimation of pulmonary function through lumped 0-dimensional studies and allows the generation of probabilistic confidence maps of airway generation data. Such a visualization could be exploited by airway tree segmentation methodologies to improve the results further constraining the 3D space to be searched. Further elaborating on the benefits of the presented methodology, the generation of extended bronchial tree surface allows the assessment of airway functionality. Several studies available in the literature have employed computational fluid dynamics to predict flow and particle transfer patterns inside the conducting regions of the bronchial tree. Generating the 3D mesh constituting the surface defines the boundary conditions for this category of studies. Furthermore, surface deformation functionalities allow simulating broncho-constriction, which is the main feature in constrictive pulmonary diseases such as asthma and COPD. Existing approaches of medication adherence in asthma and COPD patients are usually based on the analysis of breathing signals acquired with acoustic sensors attached on inhaler devices [85] [86]. The concept of such studies is to facilitate self-management by guiding the patients to improve their inhaler usage technique [87]. AVATREE could contribute to this type of analysis by estimating the effectiveness of inhaled medication based on personalized imaging data and particle deposition simulations [46]. Both automated and UI guided solutions are provided by the presented open-source solution enabling users to simulate pathological conditions in asthmatic patients guided by imaging priors data from healthy subjects.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://vessel12.grand-challenge.org/. The repository is now publicly available at https://gitlab.com/LungModelling/avatree. Furthermore, the outcomes of the presented pipeline are available at https://www.kaggle.com/vvrlabeceupatras/pone-avatree-results.

Funding Statement

This work has been co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund of the European Union and Greek national funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call RESEARCH – CREATE - INNOVATE Take-A-Breath, under grant agreement No. T1EDK-03832). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Horsfield K. Morphometry of airways Handbook of Physiology The Respiratory System III: American Physiological Society. 1986; p. 75–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Kitaoka H, Takaki R, Suki B. A three-dimensional model of the human airway tree. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1999;87(6):2207–2217. 10.1152/jappl.1999.87.6.2207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Wang C, Bassingthwaighte J, Weissman L. Bifurcating distributive system using Monte Carlo method. Mathematical and computer modelling. 1992;16(3):91–98. 10.1016/0895-7177(92)90050-U [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Tawhai MH, Pullan A, Hunter P. Generation of an anatomically based three-dimensional model of the conducting airways. Annals of biomedical engineering. 2000;28(7):793–802. 10.1114/1.1289457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Tawhai MH, Burrowes KS. Developing integrative computational models of pulmonary structure. The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist: An Official Publication of the American Association of Anatomists. 2003;275(1):207–218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Tawhai MH, Hunter P, Tschirren J, Reinhardt J, McLennan G, Hoffman EA. CT-based geometry analysis and finite element models of the human and ovine bronchial tree. Journal of applied physiology. 2004;97(6):2310–2321. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00520.2004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Bordas R, Lefevre C, Veeckmans B, Pitt-Francis J, Fetita C, Brightling CE, et al. Development and analysis of patient-based complete conducting airways models. PloS one. 2015;10(12):e0144105 10.1371/journal.pone.0144105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Ionescu C, De Keyser R. Parametric models for characterizing respiratory input impedance. Journal of medical engineering & technology. 2008;32(4):315–324. 10.1080/03091900701862240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Ionescu CM, Copot D, De Keyser R. Respiratory impedance model with lumped fractional order diffusion compartment. IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 2013;46(1):260–265. 10.3182/20130204-3-FR-4032.00084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Tawhai M, Clark A, Donovan G, Burrowes K. Computational Modeling of Airway and Pulmonary Vascular Structure and Function: Development of a “Lung Physiome”. Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering. 2011;39(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Haefeli-Bleuer B, Weibel ER. Morphometry of the human pulmonary acinus. The Anatomical Record. 1988;220(4):401–414. 10.1002/ar.1092200410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Phillips C, Kaye S, Schroter R. A diameter-based reconstruction of the branching pattern of the human bronchial tree Part II. Mathematical formulation. Respiration physiology. 1994;98(2):219–226. 10.1016/0034-5687(94)00043-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pisupati C, Wolff L, Mitzner W, Zerhouni E. A central axis algorithm for 3D bronchial tree structures. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Computer Vision-ISCV. IEEE; 1995. p. 259–264.
  • 14. Weibel ER, Cournand AF, Richards DW. Morphometry of the human lung. vol. 1 Springer; 1963. [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Huang W, Yen R, McLaurine M, Bledsoe G. Morphometry of the human pulmonary vasculature. Journal of applied physiology. 1996;81(5):2123–2133. 10.1152/jappl.1996.81.5.2123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Sluimer I, Schilham A, Prokop M, Van Ginneken B. Computer analysis of computed tomography scans of the lung: a survey. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2006;25(4):385–405. 10.1109/TMI.2005.862753 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Lo P, Van Ginneken B, Reinhardt JM, Yavarna T, De Jong PA, Irving B, et al. Extraction of airways from CT (EXACT’09). IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2012;31(11):2093–2107. 10.1109/TMI.2012.2209674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Irving B, Taylor P, Todd-Pokropek A. 3D segmentation of the airway tree using a morphology based method. In: Proceedings of 2nd international workshop on pulmonary image analysis; 2009. p. 297–07.
  • 19.Fetita C, Ortner M, Brillet PY, Prêteux F, Grenier P, et al. A morphological-aggregative approach for 3D segmentation of pulmonary airways from generic MSCT acquisitions. In: Proc. of Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis; 2009. p. 215–226.
  • 20. Lo P, Sporring J, Ashraf H, Pedersen JJ, de Bruijne M. Vessel-guided airway tree segmentation: A voxel classification approach. Medical image analysis. 2010;14(4):527–538. 10.1016/j.media.2010.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pinho R, Luyckx S, Sijbers J. Robust region growing based intrathoracic airway tree segmentation. In: Proc. of Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis; 2009. p. 261–271.
  • 22.Feuerstein M, Kitasaka T, Mori K. Adaptive branch tracing and image sharpening for airway tree extraction in 3-D chest CT. In: Proc. of Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis. vol. 1; 2009. p. 1–8.
  • 23.Fabijanska A. Results of applying two-pass region growing algorithm for airway tree segmentation to MDCT chest scans from EXACT database. In: The Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis, CreateSpace, USA; 2009. p. 251–260.
  • 24.Mendoza CS, Acha B, Serrano C. Maximal contrast adaptive region growing for CT airway tree segmentation. In: Proc. of Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis; 2009. p. 285–295.
  • 25.Van Rikxoort EM, Baggerman W, van Ginneken B. Automatic segmentation of the airway tree from thoracic CT scans using a multi-threshold approach. In: Proc. of Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis; 2009. p. 341–349.
  • 26. Weinheimer O, Achenbach T, Düber C. Fully automated extraction of airways from CT scans based on self-adapting region growing. Computerized Tomography. 2008;27(1):64–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wiemker R, Bülow T, Lorenz C. A simple centricity-based region growing algorithm for the extraction of airways. In: Proc. Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis (MICCAI). Citeseer; 2009. p. 309–314.
  • 28.Tschirren J, Yavarna T, Reinhardt J. Airway segmentation framework for clinical environments. In: Proceedings of 2nd international workshop on pulmonary image analysis; 2009. p. 227–38.
  • 29.Bauer C, Pock T, Bischof H, Beichel R. Airway tree reconstruction based on tube detection. In: Proc. of Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis; 2009. p. 203–213.
  • 30. Smistad E, Elster AC, Lindseth F. GPU accelerated segmentation and centerline extraction of tubular structures from medical images. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery. 2014;9(4):561–575. 10.1007/s11548-013-0956-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bauer C, Bischof H, Beichel R. Segmentation of airways based on gradient vector flow. In: International workshop on pulmonary image analysis, Medical image computing and computer assisted intervention. Citeseer; 2009. p. 191–201.
  • 32. Smistad E, Bozorgi M, Lindseth F. FAST: framework for heterogeneous medical image computing and visualization. International Journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery. 2015;10(11):1811–1822. 10.1007/s11548-015-1158-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hagmeijer R, Venner C. Critical review of Murray’s theory for optimal branching in fluidic networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:181209706. 2018;.
  • 34. Pepe VR, Rocha LA, Miguel AF. Optimal branching structure of fluidic networks with permeable walls. BioMed research international. 2017;2017 10.1155/2017/5284816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Varner VD, Nelson CM. Computational models of airway branching morphogenesis In: Seminars in cell & developmental biology. vol. 67 Elsevier; 2017. p. 170–176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Florens M, Sapoval B, Filoche M. An anatomical and functional model of the human tracheobronchial tree. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2010;110(3):756–763. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00984.2010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Kamiya A, Togawa T, Yamamoto A. Theoretical relationship between the optimal models of the vascular tree. Bulletin of mathematical biology. 1974;36(3):311–323. 10.1007/bf02461331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Tawhai MH, Nash MP, Hoffman EA. An imaging-based computational approach to model ventilation distribution and soft-tissue deformation in the ovine lung1. Academic radiology. 2006;13(1):113–120. 10.1016/j.acra.2005.09.088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Fernandez J, Mithraratne P, Thrupp S, Tawhai M, Hunter P. Anatomically based geometric modelling of the musculo-skeletal system and other organs. Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology. 2004;2(3):139–155. 10.1007/s10237-003-0036-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Hegedűs CJ, Balásházy I, Farkas Á. Detailed mathematical description of the geometry of airway bifurcations. Respiratory physiology & neurobiology. 2004;141(1):99–114. 10.1016/j.resp.2004.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Heistracher T, Hofmann W. Physiologically realistic models of bronchial airway bifurcations. Journal of Aerosol Science. 1995;26(3):497–509. 10.1016/0021-8502(94)00113-D [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Lin CL, Tawhai M, McLennan G, Hoffman E. Multiscale simulation of gas flow in subject-specific models of the human lung. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2009;28(3):25–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Mirams GR, Arthurs CJ, Bernabeu MO, Bordas R, Cooper J, Corrias A, et al. Chaste: an open source C++ library for computational physiology and biology. PLoS computational biology. 2013;9(3):e1002970 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Montesantos S, Katz I, Pichelin M, Caillibotte G. The creation and statistical evaluation of a deterministic model of the human bronchial tree from HRCT images. PLOS one. 2016;11(12):e0168026 10.1371/journal.pone.0168026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nousias S, Lalos AS, Moustakas K. Computational modeling for simulating obstructive lung diseases based on geometry processing methods. In: International Conference on Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Springer; 2016. p. 100–109.
  • 46. Lalas A, Nousias S, Kikidis D, Lalos A, Arvanitis G, Sougles C, et al. Substance deposition assessment in obstructed pulmonary system through numerical characterization of airflow and inhaled particles attributes. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2017;17(3):173 10.1186/s12911-017-0561-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Vial L, Perchet D, Fodil R, Caillibotte G, Fetita C, Preteux F, et al. Airflow modeling of steady inspiration in two realistic proximal airway trees reconstructed from human thoracic tomodensitometric images. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering. 2005;8(4):267–277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. De Backer J, Vos W, Gorlé C, Germonpré P, Partoens B, Wuyts F, et al. Flow analyses in the lower airways: patient-specific model and boundary conditions. Medical engineering & physics. 2008;30(7):872–879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Luo H, Liu Y. Modeling the bifurcating flow in a CT-scanned human lung airway. Journal of Biomechanics. 2008;41(12):2681–2688. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Yin Y, Choi J, Hoffman EA, Tawhai MH, Lin CL. Simulation of pulmonary air flow with a subject-specific boundary condition. Journal of biomechanics. 2010;43(11):2159–2163. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Srivastav VK, Paul AR, Jain A. Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of Airflow and Particle Transport in Third to Sixth Generation Human Respiratory Tract. International Journal of Emerging Multidisciplinary Fluid Sciences. 2011;3(4). 10.1260/1756-8315.3.4.227 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Swan AJ, Clark AR, Tawhai MH. A computational model of the topographic distribution of ventilation in healthy human lungs. Journal of theoretical biology. 2012;300:222–231. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.01.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Tian G, Hindle M, Lee S, Longest PW. Validating CFD predictions of pharmaceutical aerosol deposition with in vivo data. Pharmaceutical research. 2015;32(10):3170–3187. 10.1007/s11095-015-1695-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Miyawaki S, Hoffman EA, Lin CL. Effect of static vs. dynamic imaging on particle transport in CT-based numerical models of human central airways. Journal of aerosol science. 2016;100:129–139. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2016.07.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Soni B, Aliabadi S. Large-scale CFD simulations of airflow and particle deposition in lung airway. Computers & Fluids. 2013;88:804–812. 10.1016/j.compfluid.2013.06.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Stylianou FS, Sznitman J, Kassinos SC. Direct numerical simulation of particle laden flow in a human airway bifurcation model. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow. 2016;61:677–710. 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2016.07.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Verbanck S, Schuermans D, Vincken W. Small airways ventilation heterogeneity and hyperinflation in COPD: response to tiotropium bromide. International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2007;2(4):625 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Sul B, Wallqvist A, Morris MJ, Reifman J, Rakesh V. A computational study of the respiratory airflow characteristics in normal and obstructed human airways. Computers in biology and medicine. 2014;52:130–143. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2014.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Kim M, Bordas R, Vos W, Hartley RA, Brightling CE, Kay D, et al. Dynamic flow characteristics in normal and asthmatic lungs. International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering. 2015;31(12). 10.1002/cnm.2730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Lin CL, Tawhai MH, McLennan G, Hoffman EA. Characteristics of the turbulent laryngeal jet and its effect on airflow in the human intra-thoracic airways. Respiratory physiology & neurobiology. 2007;157(2-3):295–309. 10.1016/j.resp.2007.02.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Miyawaki S, Choi S, Hoffman EA, Lin CL. A 4DCT imaging-based breathing lung model with relative hysteresis. Journal of computational physics. 2016;326:76–90. 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.08.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Kumar H, Tawhai MH, Hoffman EA, Lin CL. The effects of geometry on airflow in the acinar region of the human lung. Journal of biomechanics. 2009;42(11):1635–1642. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.04.046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Montesantos S, Katz I, Fleming J, Majoral C, Pichelin M, Dubau C, et al. Airway morphology from high resolution computed tomography in healthy subjects and patients with moderate persistent asthma. The anatomical record. 2013;296(6):852–866. 10.1002/ar.22695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Hasler D, Anagnostopoulou P, Nyilas S, Latzin P, Schittny J, Obrist D. A multi-scale model of gas transport in the lung to study heterogeneous lung ventilation during the multiple-breath washout test. PLoS computational biology. 2019;15(6):e1007079 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Karamaoun C, Sobac B, Mauroy B, Van Muylem A, Haut B. New insights into the mechanisms controlling the bronchial mucus balance. PloS one. 2018;13(6):e0199319 10.1371/journal.pone.0199319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Kolanjiyil AV, Kleinstreuer C. Computationally efficient analysis of particle transport and deposition in a human whole-lung-airway model. Part I: Theory and model validation. Computers in biology and medicine. 2016;79:193–204. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.10.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Kolanjiyil AV, Kleinstreuer C, Sadikot RT. Computationally efficient analysis of particle transport and deposition in a human whole-lung-airway model. Part II: Dry powder inhaler application. Computers in biology and medicine. 2017;84:247–253. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Whitfield CA, Horsley A, Jensen OE. Modelling structural determinants of ventilation heterogeneity: A perturbative approach. PloS one. 2018;13(11):e0208049 10.1371/journal.pone.0208049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Pozin N, Montesantos S, Katz I, Pichelin M, Vignon-Clementel I, Grandmont C. A tree-parenchyma coupled model for lung ventilation simulation. International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering. 2017;33(11):e2873 10.1002/cnm.2873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Pozin N, Montesantos S, Katz I, Pichelin M, Vignon-Clementel I, Grandmont C. Predicted airway obstruction distribution based on dynamical lung ventilation data: A coupled modeling-machine learning methodology. International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering. 2018;34(9):e3108 10.1002/cnm.3108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Meyers M, Rodrigues N, Ari A. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation: A narrative review. Canadian journal of respiratory therapy: CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire: RCTR. 2019;55:40 10.29390/cjrt-2019-004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Adams R, Bischof L. Seeded region growing. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence. 1994;16(6):641–647. 10.1109/34.295913 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Lorensen WE, Cline HE. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. In: ACM siggraph computer graphics. vol. 21. ACM; 1987. p. 163–169.
  • 74. Zheng Y, Fu H, Au OKC, Tai CL. Bilateral normal filtering for mesh denoising. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 2010;17(10):1521–1530. 10.1109/TVCG.2010.264 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Kazhdan M, Bolitho M, Hoppe H. Poisson surface reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the fourth Eurographics symposium on Geometry processing. vol. 7; 2006. p. 1–10.
  • 76.Au OKC, Tai CL, Chu HK, Cohen-Or D, Lee TY. Skeleton extraction by mesh contraction. In: ACM transactions on graphics (TOG). vol. 27. ACM; 2008. p. 44.
  • 77.Sorkine O, Cohen-Or D, Lipman Y, Alexa M, Rössl C, Seidel HP. Laplacian surface editing. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Eurographics/ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Geometry processing. ACM; 2004. p. 175–184.
  • 78.Nealen A, Igarashi T, Sorkine O, Alexa M. Laplacian mesh optimization. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques in Australasia and Southeast Asia. ACM; 2006. p. 381–389.
  • 79. Shapira L, Shamir A, Cohen-Or D. Consistent mesh partitioning and skeletonisation using the shape diameter function. The Visual Computer. 2008;24(4):249 10.1007/s00371-007-0197-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.The CGAL Project. CGAL User and Reference Manual. 4.14 ed. CGAL Editorial Board; 2019. Available from: https://doc.cgal.org/4.14/Manual/packages.html.
  • 81. Rudyanto RD, Kerkstra S, Van Rikxoort EM, Fetita C, Brillet PY, Lefevre C, et al. Comparing algorithms for automated vessel segmentation in computed tomography scans of the lung: the VESSEL12 study. Medical image analysis. 2014;18(7):1217–1232. 10.1016/j.media.2014.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Fleming J, Conway J, Majoral C, Katz I, Caillibotte G, Pichelin M, et al. Controlled, parametric, individualized, 2-D and 3-D imaging measurements of aerosol deposition in the respiratory tract of asthmatic human subjects for model validation. Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery. 2015;28(6):432–451. 10.1089/jamp.2014.1191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Majoral C, Fleming J, Conway J, Katz I, Tossici-Bolt L, Pichelin M, et al. Controlled, parametric, individualized, 2D and 3D imaging measurements of aerosol deposition in the respiratory tract of healthy human volunteers: in vivo data analysis. Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery. 2014;27(5):349–362. 10.1089/jamp.2013.1065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Das P, Nof E, Amirav I, Kassinos SC, Sznitman J. Targeting inhaled aerosol delivery to upper airways in children: Insight from computational fluid dynamics (CFD). PloS one. 2018;13(11):e0207711 10.1371/journal.pone.0207711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Nousias S, Lalos AS, Arvanitis G, Moustakas K, Tsirelis T, Kikidis D, et al. An mHealth system for monitoring medication adherence in obstructive respiratory diseases using content based audio classification. IEEE Access. 2018;6:11871–11882. 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2809611 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Pettas D, Nousias S, Zacharaki EI, Moustakas K. Recognition of Breathing Activity and Medication Adherence using LSTM Neural Networks. In: 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE). IEEE; 2019. p. 941–946.
  • 87.Polychronidou E, Lalas A, Tzovaras D, Votis K. A systematic distributing sensor system prototype for respiratory diseases. In: 2019 International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob). IEEE; 2019. p. 191–196.

Decision Letter 0

Fang-Bao Tian

7 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-24923

AVATREE: An open-source computational modelling framework modelling Anatomically Valid Airway TREE conformations

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Nousias,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 21 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fang-Bao Tian

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'This research has been funded by the European Regional Development Fund of the

European Union and Greek national funds through the Operational Program Compet-itiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call RESEARCH - CREATE - INNOVATE (project code:T1EDK-03832).'

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

'The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.'

3.  Please ensure that you refer to Figure 7 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for submitting your work to Plos One. It has been commented by two independent specialists. As you can see, their views regarding the paper quality are quite different. I would give you an opportunity, to clarify the major issues raised by Reviewer 2, given that the tool introduced may have important application in the community.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have read PONE-D-19-24923 which develops a computational modelling framework called “AVATREE” to define the personalized boundary conditions required for the simulation of pulmonary functions. Specifically, the AVATREE works as follows: (i) using image data to provide patient-specific representations of the structural models of the bronchial tree, (ii) establishing and extending 1D graph representations of the bronchial tree, (iii) generating 3D surface models of the extended bronchial tree models, (iv) producing probabilities visualization of airway generations on the personalized CT imaging data, and (v) offering an open-source toolbox in C++ and a graphical user interface integrating modelling functionalities. The AVATREE can successfully create anatomically valid airway tree conformations, which would be helpful to eventually predict gas flow and particle deposition characteristics in the healthy and diseased bronchial trees. In my view, this computational modelling framework is worth popularizing, and therefore I advise the paper to be accepted by the PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #2: This article presents AVAtree, a software designed to take CT images and create computational descriptions of the pulmonary airways. The aim of the paper is to provide an end to end tool that creates airway trees from imaging, which would be highly useful for the community. However, there are several issues with the presentation of the models employed in the context of existing studies and softwares in the area, and there is not enough information on whether the end-point models of the airway anatomy reflect real lung structures to thoroughly assess the validity of the methods.

1. It was not clear from the manuscript how to access or use AVAtree, as this is a proposed opensource software. The link to a gitlab repository is given as a foot note, but clearer instructions would be beneficial. An attempt to access this repository at https://gitlab.com/vvr/LungModelling led to a ‘page not found’ error. Therefore it was impossible to assess whether the software behaves as described.

2. There appears to be some confusion regarding the existing literature in the background section. This section is somewhat unfocused, and needs work to clearly motivate the research being conducted. For example, Fernandez et al. looked at generating lung surface representations but this is the only study looking at the lung surface in this section. It appears to be presented in respect to defining boundary conditions for fluid dynamics models, but as far as I am aware the Fernandez model has not been used in that way. The section then jumps to a Hegedus who look at idealised representations of the upper airways, which is not related to the Fernadez study.

3. Reference [4] is incorrectly given as a reference for AVAtree on page 2.

4. Section 1.1.3 – I think the citation for coupled 3D-1D models is incorrect. Tawhai & Lin [37] is a review article, and to state that this study did the modelling is not correct – the original papers are cited in that reference.

5. The Florens model is not defined very well in section 1.1.3 and its relation to the two Tawhai studies that surround it is not clear.

6. Again, Tawhai [10] is a review, it is not the paper that defined the volume filling branching model, and it did not focus on constrictive lung conditions. The Bordas study is one of many studies that use, or build upon these methods to predict function (see below), and the other studies are neglected from discussion. The Varner paper in this paragraph seems to me to refer specifically to branching mophogenesis in lung development, which is different to representing developed morphology in a model.

7. A similar open-source pipeline is available in the Chaste framework – presented in a Bordas paper cited in this manuscript. This is not really discussed and should be as the two frameworks are similar in many ways.

8. Section 2.1 (Segmentation and airways centerline extraction). This appears to be a new implementation for airway segmentation. But how do the authors know this is accurate? Several software, including opensource software have been generated to segment airways. The employed algorithm needs to be compared in some way to the field. This should be a comparison with existing algorithms and/or a comparison to a gold standard (perhaps a manual segmentation).

9. The branching method described first by Tawhai [4], was first modified by the same group, (Tawhai et al. Journal of Applied Physiology 97: 2310-2321, 2004). Variations of this algorithm have been implemented by Bordas et al [cited] who provided an open source implementation. But variations have also been presented by Abadi et al (IEEE transactions on medical imaging 37: 693-702, 2018) and Mullally et al. (Ann Biomed Eng 37: 286-300, 2009), and Montesantos et al. PloS one 11: e0168026, 2016). In general, modifications have been made to suit a groups own modelling applications – to claim these changes as an improvement, would require some improved comparison to morphological studies. For the most part these models perform fairly similarly, and are good representations of the airway structure of the lung.

10. The difference between this and previous methods is a PCA based splitting of seed points, very limited information is given about why one would do this (it seems more complicated than other methods), or what improvements it brings. The algorithm should at the very least be compared to real lung morphometric data, as has been typical in previous studies using similar algorithms.

11. It is not clear how the volume of the lung is defined from imaging, or how generated branches are restricted to lie in the lung volume (if at all).

12. Given there is presumably a complete 3D representation of the upper airway tree from CT, some information needs to be given regaring why would want to represent these branches as idealised tubular structures for CFD?

13. Figures associated with dataset collection (and some beyond) have no numbers

14. It is not at all clear what is meant by personalised boundary conditions, or how they are calculated – what is being simulated for which personalised boundary conditions are needed? Or do these boundary conditions relate to tree generation?

15. To what level is the extended tree generated? The figures suggest that this is not to the level of the acinus as in most previous studies using similar algorithms, but that this is tunable. More information on this would be beneficial, especially in relation to how well the lung is represented it different choices are made.

16. Fig 2 shows one very ling thin branch distending from the main upper airway tree – this does not look anatomical, I would suggest that the algorithm has missed some branches from this main airway, as a very long and thin branch like that is unusual.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: AVATREE comment.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 3;15(4):e0230259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230259.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Dec 2019

===================================================================================

Reviewer 1

General comments

I have read PONE-D-19-24923 which develops a computational modelling framework called \\AVATREE" to define the personalized boundary conditions required for the simulation of pulmonary functions. Specifically, the AVATREE works as follows: (i) using image data to provide patientspecific representations of the structural models of the bronchial tree, (ii) establishing and extending 1D graph representations of the bronchial tree, (iii) generating 3D surface models of the extended bronchial tree models, (iv) producing probabilities visualization of airway generations on the personalized CT imaging data, and (v) offering an open-source toolbox in C++ and a graphical user interface integrating modelling functionalities. The AVATREE can successfully create anatomically valid airway tree conformations, which would be helpful to eventually predict gas flow and particle deposition characteristics in the healthy and diseased bronchial trees. In my view, this computational modelling framework is worth popularizing, and therefore I advise the paper to be accepted by the PLOS ONE.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for commending our work. With this review, we aim to provide more justification for the strong and weak points of our work and improve the organization of our paper.

===================================================================================

Reviewer 2

General comments

This article presents AVATree, a software designed to take CT images and create computational descriptions of the pulmonary airways. The paper aims to provide an end to end tool that creates airway trees from imaging, which would be highly useful for the community. However, there are several issues with the presentation of the models employed in the context of existing studies and 1software in the area, and there is not enough information on whether the end-point models of the airway anatomy reflect real lung structures to thoroughly assess the validity of the methods. XResponse: We thank the reviewer for identifying these presentation issues. We describe below how we tried to improve the context of the related work and the methodological assessment and validation.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.1: It was not clear from the manuscript how to access or use AVAtree, as this is a proposed opensource software. The link to a gitlab repository is given as a footnote, but clearer instructions would be beneficial. An attempt to access this repository at https://gitlab.com/vvr/LungModelling led to a ‘page not found’ error. Therefore it was impossible to assess whether the software behaves as described.

Response 2.1: We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing out this and to clarify that the repository was not made publicly available as we were expecting the outcome of the review process.

Actual changes implemented:

• The repository is now publicly available at

https://gitlab.com/LungModelling/avatree

• Furthermore, we attach the following private link containing the outcomes of the presented

pipeline for the needs of the review process.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kkh8p8eikxdvkah/AACUP0-hubPx69Waaamyvh9Ta?dl=0

Please treat both links confidentially.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.2 There appears to be some confusion regarding the existing literature in the background section. This section is somewhat unfocused and needs work to clearly motivate the research being conducted. For example, Fernandez et al. looked at generating lung surface representations but this is the only study looking at the lung surface in this section. It appears to be presented in respect to defining boundary conditions for fluid dynamics models, but as far as I am aware the Fernandez model has not been used in that way. The section then jumps to a Hegedus who look at idealised representations of the upper airways, which is not related to the Fernadez study.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comment that gives us the opportunity to explain better the contribution of our work and to present the main differences in comparison with similar previous work. Our study aims towards defining personalized boundary conditions that allow to derive flow and particle deposition patterns. Airway branch generation algorithms predict the structure of the bronchial tree in regions that CT based segmentation is not possible. Other studies revealing the relation of the children branch diameters as a function of the branching angle and the parent branch diameters facilitate the definition of the expected diameter for each branch. However, to allow the derivation of flow patterns, mesh structures define the boundary conditions for the CFD simulation. To this end the work of Fernandez was employed by Tawhai et al.[1, 2, 3] facilitating the definition of the lung surface cubic Hermite interpolation. Hegedus et al. attempted to define mathematically the surface of an idealized bifurcation. Such a modelling approach, given the centerline of the bronchial tree, can define the surface of the whole tree since the airways would follow a tubular structure linked with the bifurcation surface. Thus, the aforementioned studies are relevant to our approach since we define the same boundary 2conditions as the Poisson reconstructed surface of a sampled point cloud in order to avoid the definition of special rules in the reconstruction of the surface of bifurcations.

Actual changes implemented: The whole section 1.1 was restructured to better reflect the

aforementioned reasoning.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.3

Reference [4] is incorrectly given as a reference for AVAtree on page 2.

Response: Indeed, reference [4] was incorrectly given as a reference for AVATREE.

Actual changes implemented: The reference was removed.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.4 Section 1.1.3 I think the citation for coupled 3D-1D models is incorrect. Tawhai and Lin [37] is a review article, and to state that this study did the modelling is not correct the original papers are cited in that reference.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comment that gives us the opportunity to provide sharper insights on current literature. The original paper that should be referenced in this section might be the work of Lin C-L and Tawhai M-H entitled "Multiscale simulation of gas flow in subject-specific models of the human lung".

Actual changes implemented: The correct references are now included.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.5 The Florens model is not defined very well in section 1.1.3 and its relation to the two Tawhai studies that surround it is not clear.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comment that gives us the opportunity to better present the "Background and related work section". The Florens model, though belonging in the generic category of studies related to the anatomical and functional model of the human tracheo-bronchial tree is not directly linked to our study.

Actual changes implemented: Taking into account the reviewer comments 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 the whole section was rewritten.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.6 Again, Tawhai [10] is a review, it is not the paper that defined the volume filling branching model, and it did not focus on constrictive lung conditions. The Bordas study is one of many studies that use or build upon these methods to predict function (see below), and the other studies are neglected from discussion. The Varner paper in this paragraph seems to me to refer specifically to branching morphogenesis in lung development, which is different to representing developed morphology in a model.

Response: Tawhai et al in the review paper entitled "Computational modeling of the airway and pulmonary vascular structure and function: development of a "lung physiome" provided an overview of studies related to airway bronchoconstriction mechanisms which could be significant in terms of defining and describing constrictive pulmonary conditions. However, as the reviewer correctly highlights the background section requires refocusing towards the studies that relate with the benefits of our approach. To this end, the phrase "with respect to pulmonary constrictive conditions" was removed. Bordas et al. [4] developed image analysis and modelling pipeline and applied it to healthy and asthmatic patient scans to produce complete personalized airway models to the acinar level incorporating, lung and lobar segmentation, airway segmentation and centerline extraction, algorithmic generation of distal airways, zero-dimensional models. Their results and implementation were included into the Chaste framework [5] which is an open-source framework to facilitate computational modelling in heart, lung and soft tissue simulations. The Varner paper was indeed not so relevant in this context. However Varner et al. report that "detailed morphometric analysis of the bronchial tree has revealed a similar geometric scaling. Using casts of human lungs, Weibel and Gomez reported that the average diameter of the zth generation of airways, d(z), follows the scaling law d(z) = d0 × 2− z3 , which is consistent with Murray’s law for symmetric branching" which is relevant to a certain component of our pipeline. To this end, the whole section was rewritten to better highlight such points.

Actual changes implemented: To this end, the whole section was rewritten to better highlight

the reviewer’s aspect.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.7 A similar open-source pipeline is available in the Chaste framework { presented in a Bordas paper cited in this manuscript. This is not really discussed and should be as the two frameworks are similar in many ways.

Response: Bordas et al. [4] developed an image analysis and modelling pipeline and applied it to healthy and asthmatic patient scans to produce complete personalized airway models to the acinar level incorporating lung and lobar segmentation, airway segmentation and centerline extraction, algorithmic generation of distal airways, zero-dimensional models. Their results and implementation were included into the Chaste framework [5] which is an open-source framework to facilitate computational modelling in heart, lung and soft tissue simulations. With respect to Chaste, our work: • generates surface meshes of extended patient-based bronchial trees,

• simulates constrictions of the airways,

• generates models that are suitable for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations,

• generates probabilistic view of airway tree generations.

Actual changes implemented: A new paragraph was added in 1.1 discussing Chaste framework and relevant similar frameworks.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.8 Section 2.1 (Segmentation and airways centerline extraction). This appears to be a new implementation for airway segmentation. But how do the authors know this is accurate? Several software, including opensource software, have been generated to segment airways. The employed algorithm needs to be compared in some way to the field. This should be a comparison with existing algorithms and/or a comparison to a gold standard (perhaps a manual segmentation).

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comment that gives us the opportunity to strengthen the basis of our pipeline. The input of our approach is the binary masks of the segmented airway tree and the lung volumes and can be obtained by any algorithm that successfully segments the first generations of the airways.For this purpose we investigated two algorithms, but AVATREE is modular to the CT segmentation method. The first investigated algorithm is the gradient vector flow [6, 7] which achieved high accuracy with low false-positive rate (only 1.44%) in a comparative study [8] in the context of the EXACT09 airway segmentation challenge. However the implementation of this method showed some instabilities, therefore we also exploited a standard and stable approach, which is the seeded region growing algorithm proposed in [9]. All algorithms presented in EXACT09 study perform well in the prediction of the first 4 generations validated on images of 16 subjects. As presented by Lo et al. the following figure indicates all 15 approaches discussed succeed in detecting the first four generations highlighted with the green color. Thus, our approach receives as input the green region of the airways detected by available baseline and sophisticated algorithms assumed to be a "golden" standard" . To this end we investigated both implementations. The former can be found in the public repository located in [10] and the latter in the public repository located in [11]. An example of the method outcome is presented in Figures 1 and 2. Further justification can be provided in [8] stating that "no 5algorithm comes close to detecting the entire reference airway tree. The highest branches detected and tree length detected for each case ranges from 64.6% to 94.3% and 62.6% to 90.4%, respectively, with an average branches detected and tree length detected of less than 77% and 74%, respectively. Fusing results from the participating algorithms improves the overall result substantially, reaching an average number of branches detected of 84.3% and an average tree length detected of 78.8%, with an average false positive rate of only 1.22%, when all fifteen algorithms[8] were used. Experiments on the inclusion of the results from different algorithms using the sequential forward selection (SFS) procedure show that the tree length of the fused results converges quite rapidly. This indicates that reasonably good results can be obtained by fusing only a subset of the algorithms. Table IV(B) in [8] shows that with a smaller number of algorithms (e.g. using up to 9 algorithms) in the fusion procedure, one can obtain a lower false positive rate at almost the same sensitivity."

===================================================================================

Comment 2.9 The branching method described first by Tawhai [4], was first modified by the same group, (Tawhai et al. Journal of Applied Physiology 97: 2310-2321, 2004). Variations of this algorithm have been implemented by Bordas et al. who provided an open-source implementation. But variations have also been presented by Abadi et al (IEEE transactions on medical imaging 37: 693-702, 2018) and Mullally et al. (Ann Biomed Eng 37: 286-300, 2009), and Montesantos et al. PloS one 11: e0168026, 2016). In general, modifications have been made to suit a groups own modelling applications { to claim these changes as an improvement, would require some improved comparison to morphological studies. For the most part, these models perform fairly similarly and are good representations of the airway structure of the lung.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for highlighting significant research in the same field. With respect to the definition of the splitting plane, Tawhai et used the direction of the lobar branch and the center of mass of the sampled points subdivision yielding a certain randomness. The same approach was used by mullaly et al. Bordas et al defined the splitting plane by the nodes of the parent branch and the center of mass of the sampled points subdivision. Abadi et al defined any plane containing the center of mass. Montesantos et al used both siblings of of the parent branch to define a splitting point. We also concur that all the aforementioned approaches perform fairly similarly and are good representations of the airway structure of the lung. The motivation for employing PCA is at the space utilization aspect. The following figures give a visual description of the effect. Picking a plane so that the resulting split volumes are less "rectangular", meaning that the sides of the bounding box demonstrate the lowest possible variation, inhibits the appearance of very long branches.

Actual changes implemented: The response for comment 2.9 is provided in comment 2.10.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.10

The difference between this and previous methods is a PCA based splitting of seed points, very limited information is given about why one would do this (it seems more complicated than other methods), or what improvements it brings. The algorithm should at the very least be compared to real lung morphometric data, as has been typical in previous studies using similar algorithms.

Response: The motivation behind employing Principal Component Analysis is that the direction of the eigenvector with the greatest norm indicates the dimension of the data with the greatest variance denoting the direction where more space is available for the branches to grow. Picking a plane so that the resulting split volumes are less "rectangular", meaning that the sides of the bounding box demonstrate the lowest possible variation, inhibits the appearance of very long branches. Although this algorithm might seem complicated, in fact PCA, as a linear transformation, is easy and fast to compute. It has been very popular in many areas solving data normalization and dimensionality reduction problems. In respect to the methods ability to properly reproduce morphometric data, the distribution of branch length and angles as a function of generation, to the best of our knowledge is in agreement with distributions generated by Montesantos et al. Specifically, in the following figure in Montesantos 2016 study presents the airway length as a function of generation and the branching angle as a function of airway generation.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.11 It is not clear how the volume of the lung is defined from imaging, or how generated branches are restricted to lie in the lung volume (if at all).

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for providing us with the opportunity to strengthen weak descriptions of our pipeline. Since the lungs have a lower density than neighbouring tissue and bones, a global threshold is applied between -850 HU and -500 HU to define seed points and perform region growing. For this process, the FAST heterogeneous medical image computing and visualization framework [19] is employed. The result of lung segmentation process is a binary mask visualized in Figure 1. As a next step, we perform further processing of the segmentation result to distinguish left and right lungs. The process is described below: 1. A second region growing takes place starting from a single random point inside any of the segmented region only if all its immediate neighbours bare the same label. 92. To advance the region growing front, all points neighbouring a candidate voxel must not include background voxel. This region is given a new label 3. Steps 1 and 2 are repeated for the other lung volume. 4. The result is an image with three labels background and lung volumes. 5. To distinguish left or right we employ the directed graph extracted from the main airways. As a generic rule, the topological distance between the bifurcations of the first and the second generation is longer in the left lung. Furthermore, for the extended bronchial tree to remain inside the lung volume branches located outside the lung volume are pruned along with any children.

Actual changes implemented: We have modified the segmentation related section 2.1 to include the presented methods. Furthermore, in subsection 2.2 we clarify that any branch located outside the lung volume is pruned along with any children.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.12

Given there is presumably a complete 3D representation of the upper airway tree from CT, some

information needs to be given regarding why would want to represent these branches as idealised

tubular structures for CFD?

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for providing us with the opportunity to highlight the issue of airway morphology. Our approach allows to include a user defined part of the original segmentation to re reconstructed outcome. The extracted 1-dimensional representation is processed to include all the bifurcations located at the end of a given generation so as to facilitate the volume filling algorithm (Please refer to response 2.16 also). Figure 1 shows the result of pruning where all generations after the nth have been pruned. This processed 1-dimensional representation is subsequently used for the bronchial tree extension. The tubular structures were chosen as a model to create a 3D representation of the extended branches in generations for which only the bronchial tree centerlines were available and not a complete 3D representation. Appropriate binding is performed in the interface between upper and lower generations to allow a smooth transition. The first generations segmented from CT retain their original 3D structure unless the user opts for a more simplified representation for the airway tree that could be used to generalize CFD simulations on an average airway tree geometry. The provided code supports both options with the personalized complete 3D representation of the upper airway being the default option. Sampling a point cloud and performing Poisson surface reconstruction produces a watertight surface with smooth transitions and allows us to avoid the definition of special rules in bifurcation surface Furthermore, since the directed graph is extracted where each point on the centerline corresponds to a point on the lung surface it is possible to deform the surface with a custom function or pattern.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.13 Figures associated with dataset collection (and some beyond) have no numbers.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for indicating us such errors.

Actual changes implemented: The Figure numbers were placed correctly.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.14 It is not at all clear what is meant by personalised boundary conditions, or how they are calculated { what is being simulated for which personalised boundary conditions are needed? Or do these boundary conditions relate to tree generation?

Response: Indeed, the personalised boundary conditions refer to the 3D triangular mesh of the bronchial tree extracted for each subject based on the CT images. The first three to four generations are extracted by the segmentation process while a user defined number of subsequent generations is predicted using the branching algorithm. As input, the branching algorithm receives a sampled volume from the lung volume segmentation mask which is personalized for each patient. Furthermore the CT-based extraction of the first generations also reflected the personalized geometry referring to the airway lengths and branching angles of the first generations of a specific subject.

===================================================================================

Comment 2.15 To what level is the extended tree generated? The figures suggest that this is not to the level of the acinus as in most previous studies using similar algorithms, but that this is tunable. More information on this would be beneficial, especially in relation to how well the lung is represented it different choices are made.

Response: The number of generation is truly a tunable parameter, thus the tree is extended to any desired generation as long as the produced branches lie inside the lung volume. If n is the desired generation, we set the stopping criteria to 2(n+1) bifurcations. The choice of n depends on the application and the subsequent CFD simulation. Bordas et al. noted that "due to the limitations of CT and the computational difficulty of these (CFD) simulations, studies are typically limited to the first 6-10 generations".Unfortunately at the moment we do not have to groundtruth data that would allow us to quantitatively assess on a subject specific basis the error introduced by new simulated generations for every additional simulated generation. However, the overall distribution of simulated bronchi length and angles, as illustrated in Figure 10 are in agreement with overall statistics observed in the literature for each generation[12].

===================================================================================

Comment 2.16 Fig 2 shows one very ling thin branch distending from the main upper airway tree { this does not look anatomical, I would suggest that the algorithm has missed some branches from this main airway, as a very long and thin branch like that is unusual.

Response: This very long branch distending from the main upper airways is most probably a segmentation error. Specifically, the long branch is part of generations 5 to 6 and their children are missing from the segmentation. To deal with such inconsistent segmentation outcomes a postprocessing step is included in the pipeline to remove branches demonstrating uncertainty regarding their generation. Furthermore the processed 1-dimensional representation has to include all the bifurcations located at the end of a given generation so as to facilitate the volume filling algorithm. Figure 1 shows the result of pruning where all generations after the nth have been pruned. This processed 1-dimensional representation is subsequently used for the bronchial tree extension.

Actual changes implemented: We updated Figure 1 so as to include pruning operation.

===================================================================================

References

[1] M. H. Tawhai, M. P. Nash, and E. A. Hoffman, \\An imaging-based computational approach to model ventilation distribution and soft-tissue deformation in the ovine lung1," Academic radiology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 113{120, 2006.

[2] C.-L. Lin, M. H. Tawhai, and E. A. Hoffman, \\Multiscale image-based modeling and simulation of gas flow and particle transport in the human lungs," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 643{655, 2013.

[3] M. H. Tawhai, P. Hunter, J. Tschirren, J. Reinhardt, G. McLennan, and E. A. Hoffman, \\Ct-based geometry analysis and finite element models of the human and ovine bronchial tree," Journal of applied physiology, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 2310{2321, 2004.

[4] R. Bordas, C. Lefevre, B. Veeckmans, J. Pitt-Francis, C. Fetita, C. E. Brightling, D. Kay, S. Siddiqui, and K. S. Burrowes, \\Development and analysis of patient-based complete conducting airways models," PloS one, vol. 10, no. 12, p. e0144105, 2015.

[5] G. R. Mirams, C. J. Arthurs, M. O. Bernabeu, R. Bordas, J. Cooper, A. Corrias, Y. Davit, S.-J. Dunn, A. G. Fletcher, D. G. Harvey et al., \\Chaste: an open source c++ library for computational physiology and biology," PLoS computational biology, vol. 9, no. 3, p. e1002970, 2013.

[6] C. Bauer, H. Bischof, and R. Beichel, \\Segmentation of airways based on gradient vector flow," in International workshop on pulmonary image analysis, Medical image computing and computer assisted intervention. Citeseer, 2009, pp. 191{201.

[7] C. Bauer, T. Pock, H. Bischof, and R. Beichel, \\Airway tree reconstruction based on tube detection," in Proc. of Second International Workshop on Pulmonary Image Analysis, 2009, pp. 203{213.

[8] P. Lo, B. Van Ginneken, J. M. Reinhardt, T. Yavarna, P. A. De Jong, B. Irving, C. Fetita, M. Ortner, R. Pinho, J. Sijbers et al., \\Extraction of airways from ct (exact’09)," IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 2093{2107, 2012.

[9] R. Adams and L. Bischof, \\Seeded region growing," IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 641{647, 1994.

[10] E. Smistad, A. C. Elster, and F. Lindseth. (2014) Tube segmentation framework. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/smistad/Tube-Segmentation-Framework

[11] E. Smistad, M. Bozorgi, and F. Lindseth. (2015) Fast (framework for heterogeneous medical image computing and visualization). [Online]. Available: https://github.com/smistad/FAST 14

[12] S. Montesantos, I. Katz, M. Pichelin, and G. Caillibotte, \\The creation and statistical evaluation of a deterministic model of the human bronchial tree from hrct images," PLOS one, vol. 11, no. 12, p. e0168026, 2016.

[13] T. Soong, P. Nicolaides, C. Yu, and S. Soong, \\A statistical description of the human tracheobronchial tree geometry," Respiration physiology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 161{172, 1979.

[14] I. C. on Radiological Protection, \\Publication 66. human respiratory tract model for radiological protection," Ann. ICRP 24., 1994.

[15] R. Phalen, H. Yeh, G. Schum, and O. Raabe, \\Application of an idealized model to morphometry of the mammalian tracheobronchial tree," The Anatomical Record, vol. 190, no. 2, pp. 167{176, 1978.

[16] H.-C. Yeh and G. Schum, \\Models of human lung airways and their application to inhaled particle deposition," Bulletin of mathematical biology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 461{480, 1980.

[17] R. F. Phalen, M. J. Oldham, C. B. Beaucage, T. T. Crocker, and J. Mortensen, \\Postnatal enlargement of human tracheobronchial airways and implications for particle deposition," The Anatomical Record, vol. 212, no. 4, pp. 368{380, 1985.

[18] V. Sauret, P. Halson, I. Brown, J. Fleming, and A. Bailey, \\Study of the three-dimensional geometry of the central conducting airways in man using computed tomographic (ct) images,"Journal of anatomy, vol. 200, no. 2, pp. 123{134, 2002.

[19] E. Smistad, M. Bozorgi, and F. Lindseth, \\Fast: framework for heterogeneous medical image computing and visualization," International Journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1811{1822, 2015.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE_D_19_24923_Response_to_reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Fang-Bao Tian

30 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-24923R1

AVATREE: An open-source computational modelling framework modelling Anatomically Valid Airway TREE conformations

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Nousias,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 13 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fang-Bao Tian

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: For the most part the authors have satisfied my concerns. However, the need for a comparison between generated tree structures and measured lung morphology remains. The authors have noted that their tree structures are consistent with those generated by Montesantos et al., but don’t provide direct evidence of this in the figures provided. It is left to the reader to go back to that paper and determine how similar the generated trees are. In addition, the Montesantos study is a simulated tree, and it would be most appropriate to compare directly to measurements of airway anatomy. Figures 4-9 of the cited Montesantos et al. paper, shows a comparison between their generated tree, the trees generated by other simulation studies, and, critically, anatomical studies (Horsfield and Cumming, for example). One or two figures like this should be included to verify the model. It would be reasonable for these to be Supplementary Material rather than in the main manuscript, but these data are needed to show how well the model for tree generation performs.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 3;15(4):e0230259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230259.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Feb 2020

We would like to thank the reviewer for providing us with the opportunity to improve the justification of our approach and the validity of our results. While we were not able to find CT images along with image segmentation from previous studies, thereby not being able to perform a direct volumetric comparison of the extracted trees, we could retrieve analytic results of morphometric analyses of real (not simulated) trees which allowed to validate of our predictions more thoroughly. The following section replaced subsection 3.2 titled "structural modelling" and was included in the main document instead of supplementary material to strengthen the presentation of our results.

Our simulation framework processes the initial tree centerline and generates a structural estimation given the first three to four available generation and their morphometric characteristics i.e., lengths and diameters.

To facilitate the comparison with morphometric data, we employed a publicly available dataset provided by Montesantos et al.\\cite{montesantos2016creation} labelled as pone.0168026.s001. For the sake of self-completeness, the authors of \\cite{montesantos2016creation} provided morphometric data extracted from HRCT images acquired at the University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as a part of study described in \\cite{fleming2015controlled,majoral2014controlled}. Data from seven healthy subjects and six patients with moderate or persistent asthma were included in the dataset. Asthmatic patients patients were diagnosed exacerbation-free for at least one month and were male non-smokers.

A Sensation 64 slice HRCT scanner (Siemens, Enlargen, Germany) was utilized to capture 3D images from mouth to the base of the lungs. Subjects were posed in supine position and were instructed to perform slow exhalation. Groundtruth data for the development of bronchial tree models in \\cite{montesantos2016creation} were extracted by Pulmonary Workstation 2 Software including 3 to 4 generations in the upper lobes and 6 to 7 generations in the lower lobes. For each subject, a morphology file includes the total lung volume of the subject lung (in cm^3) and the percent volume per lobe while a translation file contains the airway connectivity, starting from the trachea to the terminal nodes. We used the generated trees from \\cite{montesantos2016creation} to validate our approach and compare our results with relevant literature findings. Specifically, we compared the distributions of diameters, airway lengths and branching angles for each generation and the total number of airways for Horsfield and Strahler orders.

In total 31204 acini were calculated being in agreement with the results reported by \\cite{tawhai2004ct,montesantos2016creation}. Figures 10 and 11 present a comparison in terms of the number of airways for each level of Strahler and Horsfield orders. This comparison confirms that our model comes into agreement with pone.0168026.s001. Furthermore, distributions of airway lengths, branching angles and diameters were plotted for each generation, for AVATREE and pone.0168026.s001\\cite{montesantos2016creation}.

Airway lengths maintain the same exponential decay pattern for both models. Differences appear in generations 1 to 4 that are distinctively defined by body size and anatomical features. The distribution of branching angles of our model is also confirmed by pone.0168026.s001\\cite{montesantos2016creation} maintaining a nearly linear decay with a very small rate. The distributions of diameters per generation are also observed to follow an exponential decay pattern. Both our model and pone.0168026.s001\\cite{montesantos2016creation} decay similarly after generation 4 validating the morphometric characteristics of the airway trees generated by our approach. Figures 12 to 14 present the distribution of airway length, branching angle and diameter for each generation for AVATREE and for pone.0168026.s001 \\cite{montesantos2016creation}.

Table 1 presents and overview of quantitative macroscopic figures for AVATREE and relevant studies.

Branching ratios (RB_H,RB_S), diameter ratios (RD_H,RD_S) and length ratios RL_H,RL_S) were calculated for Strahler and Horsfield ratios denoted as *_S and *_H respectively. Specifically, RB_H,RD_H and RL_H were calculated equal to RB_H=1.74, RD_H=1.259 and RL_H=1.26+- 1.01. Montesantos et al.\\cite{montesantos2016creation} reported RB_H=1.56, RD_H=1.115 and RL_H=1.13 respectively. Additionally, RB_S,RD_S and RL_S were calculated equal to RB_S=2.35, RD_S=1.25 and RL_S=1.23+- 1.02 and are close to the figures provides by relative studies \\cite{horsfield1986morphometry,montesantos2016creation} as Table 1 reveals. Likewise, rate of decline for diameters per generation RD was calculated to RD=0.83 +- 0.21, being in agreement to \\cite{montesantos2016creation}.

Finally, average branching angle theta for our model was calculated to 32.44+-28.95 comparable to \\cite{montesantos2016creation} reporting a theta equal to 42.1+- 21.4.

Decision Letter 2

Fang-Bao Tian

26 Feb 2020

AVATREE: An open-source computational modelling framework modelling Anatomically Valid Airway TREE conformations

PONE-D-19-24923R2

Dear Dr. Nousias,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Fang-Bao Tian

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfied my concerns raised in the last round of review. Thank you for adding the statistical information on the trees, which will help readers interpret the paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Fang-Bao Tian

18 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-24923R2

AVATREE: An open-source computational modelling framework modelling Anatomically Valid Airway TREE conformations

Dear Dr. Nousias:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Fang-Bao Tian

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: AVATREE comment.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE_D_19_24923_Response_to_reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://vessel12.grand-challenge.org/. The repository is now publicly available at https://gitlab.com/LungModelling/avatree. Furthermore, the outcomes of the presented pipeline are available at https://www.kaggle.com/vvrlabeceupatras/pone-avatree-results.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES