Scinovex
articleTop 1% cited

Comparison and Evaluation of Methods for Liver Segmentation From CT Datasets

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2009 · Vol. 28(8) · pp. 1251–1265
T. HeimannBram van GinnekenMartin StynerYulia ArzhaevaVolker AurichChristian BauerAndreas BeckChristian BeckerReinhard BeichelGyörgy BekesFernando BelloG. BinnigHorst BischofAlexander BornikP M CashmanYing ChiAbby CordovaBenoît M. DawantMárta FidrichJacob FurstDaisuke FurukawaLars GrenacherJoachim HorneggerDagmar KainmüllerR.I. KitneyHidefumi KobatakeHans LameckerThomas LangeJeongjin LeeBrian LennonRui LiSenhu LiHans‐Peter MeinzerGábor NémethDaniela RaicuAnne-Mareike RauEva M. van RikxoortMikaël RoussonLászló RuskóKinda Anna SaddiGregory J. SchmidtDieter SeghersAkinobu ShimizuPieter SlagmolenE. SorantinGrzegorz SozaRuchaneewan SusomboonJonathan M. WaiteAndreas WimmerIvo Wolf

Abstract

<para xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> This paper presents a comparison study between 10 automatic and six interactive methods for liver segmentation from contrast-enhanced CT images. It is based on results from the “MICCAI 2007 Grand Challenge” workshop, where 16 teams evaluated their algorithms on a common database. A collection of 20 clinical images with reference segmentations was provided to train and tune algorithms in advance. Participants were also allowed to use additional proprietary training data for that purpose. All teams then had to apply their methods to 10 test datasets and submit the obtained results. Employed algorithms include statistical shape models, atlas registration, level-sets, graph-cuts and rule-based systems. All results were compared to reference segmentations five error measures that highlight different aspects of segmentation accuracy. All measures were combined according to a specific scoring system relating the obtained values to human expert variability. In general, interactive methods reached higher average scores than automatic approaches and featured a better consistency of segmentation quality. However, the best automatic methods (mainly based on statistical shape models with some additional free deformation) could compete well on the majority of test images. The study provides an insight in performance of different segmentation approaches under real-world conditions and highlights achievements and limitations of current image analysis techniques. </para>

Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsImage segmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)
Citations
1,115
FWCI
44.23
field-weighted impact
References
90
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Cited by
elastix: A Toolbox for Intensity-Based Medical Image Registration
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2009 · 4,269 citations
The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS)
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2014 · 6,268 citations
References
Image processing, analysis and machine vision
Neurocomputing · 1994 · 1,820 citations
A survey on evaluation methods for image segmentation
Pattern Recognition · 1996 · 1,048 citations
Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 1997 · 4,493 citations
Deformable templates using large deformation kinematics
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 1996 · 1,130 citations
Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 1999 · 5,244 citations
Graph Cuts and Efficient N-D Image Segmentation
International Journal of Computer Vision · 2006 · 1,896 citations
Nearest neighbor pattern classification
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 1967 · 15,642 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.