Purpose. Our aim is to conduct analysis and comparison of some methods commonly used to measure the volume of hematoma, for example, slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer software method (projection method). Method. In order to validate the accuracy of the slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method, these three methods were first applied to measure two known volumetric models, respectively. Then, a total of 198 patients diagnosed with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) were recruited. The patients were split into 3 different groups based on the hematoma size: group 1: (), group 2: volume between 10 and 20 ml (), and group 3: (). And the shape of the hematoma was classed into regular (round to ellipsoid) with smooth margins (), irregular with frayed margins (), and multilobular (). The slice method, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method were adopted to measure the volume of hematoma, respectively, considering the nonclosed models and the models which may contain inaccurate normal information during CT scan. Moreover, the results were compared with the 3D-Slicer method for closed models. Results. There was a significant estimation error () using these three methods to calculate the volume of the closed hematoma model. The estimated hematoma volume was calculated to be  ml,  ml, and  ml using slice method 1, slice method 2, and the voxelization method, respectively, compared to  ml using the 3D-Slicer method. The mean estimation error was -0.00398172 ml, -0.00074303 ml, and -0.00027354 ml caused by slice method 1, slice method 2, and voxelization method, respectively. There was a significant estimation error (), applying these three methods to calculate the volume of the nonclosed hematoma model. The estimated hematoma volume was calculated to be  ml using the 3D-Slicer method. The mean estimation error was calculated to be -0.00402121 ml, -0.00078237 ml, -0.00031288 ml, and -0.01983136 ml using slice method 1, slice method 2, voxelization method, and 3D-Slicer method, respectively. Conclusions. The 3D-Slicer software method is considered as a stable and capable method of high precision for the calculation of a closed hematoma model with correct normal direction, while it would be inappropriate for the nonclosed model nor the model with incorrect normal direction. The slice method and voxelization method can be the supplement and improvement of the 3D-Slicer software method, for the purpose of achieving precision medicine.

中文翻译：

---

血肿精确体积测量常用方法的比较。

目的。我们的目的是对一些常用的血肿体积测量方法进行分析和比较，例如切片法、体素化法、3D-Slicer软件法（投影法）。方法。为了验证切片法、体素化法和 3D-Slicer 法的准确性，首先将这三种方法分别用于测量两个已知的体积模型。然后，共招募了 198 名诊断为自发性脑出血 (ICH) 的患者。根据血肿大小将患者分为 3 个不同的组： 第 1 组：()，第 2 组：体积在 10 到 20 毫升之间 ()和第 3 组：(）。血肿形状为规则（圆形至椭圆形），边缘光滑（），不规则的边缘磨损（)和多小叶 (）。考虑到非封闭模型和CT扫描过程中可能包含不准确正常信息的模型，分别采用切片法、体素化法和3D-Slicer法测量血肿体积。此外，将结果与封闭模型的 3D-Slicer 方法进行了比较。结果。估计误差较大（)使用这三种方法计算闭合血肿模型的体积。估计的血肿体积计算为 毫升， 毫升，和 ml 分别使用切片方法 1、切片方法 2 和体素化方法，与 ml 使用 3D-Slicer 方法。由切片方法 1、切片方法 2 和体素化方法引起的平均估计误差分别为- 0.00398172 ml、- 0.00074303 ml 和- 0.00027354 ml。估计误差较大（)，应用这三种方法计算非闭合血肿模型的体积。估计的血肿体积计算为 ml 使用 3D-Slicer 方法。使用切片方法 1、切片方法 2、体素化方法和 3D-Slicer 方法计算的平均估计误差分别为- 0.00402121 ml、- 0.00078237 ml、-0.00031288 ml 和- 0.01983136 ml。结论。3D-Slicer 软件方法被认为是一种稳定且高精度的方法，用于计算具有正确法线方向的闭合血肿模型，而不适用于非闭合模型和不正确法线方向的模型。切片法和体素化法可以作为3D-Slicer软件方法的补充和改进，以达到精准医疗的目的。