4.7 Article

Learning normalized inputs for iterative estimation in medical image segmentation

期刊

MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 1-13

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2017.11.005

关键词

Image segmentation; Fully convolutionl networks; ResNets; Computed Tomography; Electron microscopy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging

资金

  1. Imagia Inc., MITACS [IT05356]
  2. MEDTEQ
  3. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec en Sante and Fondation de l'association des radiologistes du Quebec (FRQS-ARQ) [26993]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we introduce a simple, yet powerful pipeline for medical image segmentation that combines Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) with Fully Convolutional Residual Networks (FC-ResNets). We propose and examine a design that takes particular advantage of recent advances in the understanding of both Convolutional Neural Networks as well as ResNets. Our approach focuses upon the importance of a trainable pre-processing when using FC-ResNets and we show that a low-capacity FCN model can serve as a pre-processor to normalize medical input data. In our image segmentation pipeline, we use FCNs to obtain normalized images, which are then iteratively refined by means of a FC-ResNet to generate a segmentation prediction. As in other fully convolutional approaches, our pipeline can be used off-the-shelf on different image modalities. We show that using this pipeline, we exhibit state-of-the-art performance on the challenging Electron Microscopy benchmark, when compared to other 2D methods. We improve segmentation results on CT images of liver lesions, when contrasting with standard FCN methods. Moreover, when applying our 2D pipeline on a challenging 3D MRI prostate segmentation challenge we reach results that are competitive even when compared to 3D methods. The obtained results illustrate the strong potential and versatility of the pipeline by achieving accurate segmentations on a variety of image modalities and different anatomical regions. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据