检索结果-内蒙古大学图书馆

arXiv 2024年

作者： Dhar, Mrinal Kanti Wang, Chuanbo Patel, Yash Zhang, Taiyu Niezgoda, Jeffrey Gopalakrishnan, Sandeep Chen, Keke Yu, Zeyun Big Data Analytics and Visualization Lab Department of Computer Science University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee MilwaukeeWI United States Auxillium Health MilwaukeeWI United States Wound Healing and Tissue Repair Analytics Laboratory School of Biomedical Sciences & Health Care Administration University of Wisconsin Milwaukee MilwaukeeWI United States Department of Computer Science Marquette University MilwaukeeWI United States

Identifying individual tissues, so-called tissue segmentation, in diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) images is a challenging task and little work has been published, largely due to the limited availability of a clinical image dataset. To address this gap, we have created a DFUTissue dataset for the research community to evaluate wound tissue segmentation algorithms. The dataset contains 110 images with tissues labeled by wound experts and 600 unlabeled images. Additionally, we conducted a pilot study on segmenting wound characteristics including fibrin, granulation, and callus using deep learning. Due to the limited amount of annotated data, our framework consists of both supervised learning (SL) and semi-supervised learning (SSL) phases. In the SL phase, we propose a hybrid model featuring a Mix Transformer (MiT-b3) in the encoder and a CNN in the decoder, enhanced by the integration of a parallel spatial and channel squeeze- and-excitation (P-scSE) module known for its efficacy in improving boundary accuracy. The SSL phase employs a pseudo-labeling-based approach, iteratively identifying and incorporating valuable unlabeled images to enhance overall segmentation performance. Comparative evaluations with state-of-the-art methods are conducted for both SL and SSL phases. The SL achieves a Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 84.89%, which has been improved to 87.64% in the SSL phase. Furthermore, the results are benchmarked against two widely used SSL approaches—Generative Adversarial Networks and Cross-Consistency Training. Additionally, our hybrid model outperforms the state-of-the-art methods with a 92.99% DSC in performing binary segmentation of DFU wound areas when tested on the Chronic Wound dataset. Codes and data are available at https://***/uwm-bigdata/DFUTissueSegNet. © 2024, CC BY-NC-SA.

关键词： Image segmentation

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

Biomedical image analysis competitions: The state of current participation practice

arXiv

引用

arXiv 2022年

作者： Eisenmann, Matthias Reinke, Annika Weru, Vivienn Tizabi, Minu Dietlinde Isensee, Fabian Adler, Tim J. Godau, Patrick Cheplygina, Veronika Kozubek, Michal Maier-Hein, Klaus Jäger, Paul F. Kopp-Schneider, Annette Maier-Hein, Lena Ali, Sharib Gupta, Anubha Kybic, Jan Noble, Alison de Solórzano, Carlos Ortiz Pachade, Samiksha Petitjean, Caroline Sage, Daniel Wei, Donglai Wilden, Elizabeth Alapatt, Deepak Andrearczyk, Vincent Baid, Ujjwal Bakas, Spyridon Balu, Niranjan Bano, Sophia Bawa, Vivek Singh Bernal, Jorge Bodenstedt, Sebastian Casella, Alessandro Choi, Jinwook Commowick, Olivier Daum, Marie Depeursinge, Adrien Dorent, Reuben Egger, Jan Eichhorn, Hannah Engelhardt, Sandy Ganz, Melanie Girard, Gabriel Hansen, Lasse Heinrich, Mattias Heller, Nicholas Hering, Alessa Huaulmé, Arnaud Kim, Hyunjeong Li, Hongwei Bran Landman, Bennett Li, Jianning Ma, Jun Martel, Anne Martín-Isla, Carlos Menze, Bjoern Nwoye, Chinedu Innocent Oreiller, Valentin Padoy, Nicolas Pati, Sarthak Payette, Kelly Sudre, Carole van Wijnen, Kimberlin Vardazaryan, Armine Vercauteren, Tom Wagner, Martin Wang, Chuanbo Yap, Moi Hoon Yu, Zeyun Yuan, Chun Zenk, Maximilian Zia, Aneeq Zimmerer, David Bao, Rina Choi, Chanyeol Cohen, Andrew Dzyubachyk, Oleh Galdran, Adrian Gan, Tianyuan Guo, Tianqi Gupta, Pradyumna Haithami, Mahmood Ho, Edward Jang, Ikbeom Li, Zhili Luo, Zhengbo Lux, Filip Makrogiannis, Sokratis Müller, Dominik Oh, Young-Tack Pang, Subeen Pape, Constantin Polat, Gorkem Reed, Charlotte Rosalie Ryu, Kanghyun Scherr, Tim Thambawita, Vajira Wang, Haoyu Wang, Xinliang Xu, Kele Yeh, Hung Yeo, Doyeob Yuan, Yixuan Zeng, Yan Zhao, Xin Abbing, Julian Adam, Jannes Adluru, Nagesh Agethen, Niklas Ahmed, Salman Al Khalil, Yasmina Alenyà, Mireia Alhoniemi, Esa An, Chengyang Arega, Tewodros Weldebirhan Avisdris, Netanell Aydogan, Dogu Baran Bai, Yingbin Calisto, Maria Baldeon Basaran, Berke Doga Beetz, Marcel Bian, Hao Blansit, Kevin Bloch, Louise Bohnsack, Robert Bosticardo, Sara Breen, Jack Brudfors, Mikael Brüngel, Raphael Cabezas, Mariano Cacciola, Alb Heidelberg Division of Intelligent Medical Systems Germany Heidelberg HI Helmholtz Imaging Germany Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Heidelberg University Heidelberg Germany Heidelberg Division of Biostatistics Germany Heidelberg Division of Medical Image Computing Germany Heidelberg HI Applied Vision Lab Germany IT University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark Centre for Biomedical Image Analysis Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic Heidelberg Interactive Machine Learning Group Germany Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science and Medical Faculty Heidelberg University Heidelberg Germany NCT Heidelberg DKFZ University Hospital Heidelberg Germany School of Computing University of Leeds Leeds United Kingdom SBILab Department of ECE IIIT-Delhi India Faculty of Electrical Engineering Czech Technical University Prague Czech Republic Institute of Biomedical Engineering University of Oxford United Kingdom Center for Applied Medical Research Pamplona Spain Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Maharashtra Nanded India Université de Rouen Normandie France Lausanne Switzerland School of Engineering and Applied Science Harvard University United States ICube University of Strasbourg CNRS France Institute of Informatics School of Management HES-SO Valais-Wallis University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland Techno-Pôle 3 Sierre3960 Switzerland Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Lausanne University Hospital Rue du Bugnon 46 LausanneCH-1011 Switzerland University of Pennsylvania PhiladelphiaPA United States Department of Radiology University of Washington United States Wellcome EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences University College London London United Kingdom Visual Artificial Intelligence Lab Oxford Brookes University Oxford United Kingdom Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & Computer Vision Center Spain Dresden Fetscherstraße 74 PF 64 Dresden01307 Germany

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps. © 2022, CC BY.

关键词： Benchmarking

来源：评论

学校读者我要写书评

暂无评论

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：

通借通还

建议与咨询 留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

时间限定

文献类型

馆藏选择

核心期刊

语言

文献类型

帮助

文字说明：

检索规则说明：

检索范例：

分类表

所选分类

限定检索结果

文献类型

馆藏范围

日期分布

学科分类号

主题

机构

作者

语言

请选择保存的检索档案： 新增检索档案 确定 取消

请选择收藏分类： 新增自定义分类 确定 取消

通借通还

建议与咨询留下您的常用邮箱和电话号码，以便我们向您反馈解决方案和替代方法

请选择保存的检索档案：

请选择收藏分类：