| Literature DB >> 28577174 |
Menglong Ye1, Edward Johns2, Benjamin Walter3, Alexander Meining3, Guang-Zhong Yang4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Serial endoscopic examinations of a patient are important for early diagnosis of malignancies in the gastrointestinal tract. However, retargeting for optical biopsy is challenging due to extensive tissue variations between examinations, requiring the method to be tolerant to these changes whilst enabling real-time retargeting.Entities:
Keywords: Binary codes; Endoscopic navigation; Image recognition; Retargeting
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28577174 PMCID: PMC5541128 DOI: 10.1007/s11548-017-1620-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg ISSN: 1861-6410 Impact factor: 2.924
Fig. 1An overview of the proposed image retrieval framework for inter-examination retargeting. Black arrows indicate the training phase that hashes the descriptors and learns the encoding function, whilst grey arrows indicate the retargeting phase that retrieves relevant images to a query image
Fig. 2Proposed binary pattern performs regional comparisons to obtain a single integer describing the image location
Fig. 3Spatial pyramid pooling is applied to aggregate the responses from regional comparisons at multiple scales, which generates a 496-d image descriptor
Details of the clustered video dataset with their inter-cluster variances (ICV)
| Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | Patient 4 | Patient 5 | Patient 6 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Video ID | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| Images | 1220 | 1299 | 868 | 991 | 1056 | 877 | 1034 | 1059 | 543 | 679 | 2071 | 3663 | 1518 |
| Clusters | 19 | 20 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 10 | 12 | 26 | 34 | 21 |
| ICV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 4Precision-recall curves of descriptor evaluation on patient-specific experiments
Mean average precisions for retrieval performance. Our descriptor is compared to a range of popular descriptors
| Methods | BOW | FV | VLAD | GIST | SPACT | Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | 0.227 | 0.233 | 0.234 | 0.387 | 0.411 | 0.488 |
| Patient 2 | 0.307 | 0.418 | 0.468 | 0.636 | 0.477 | 0.722 |
| Patient 3 | 0.321 | 0.290 | 0.338 | 0.576 | 0.595 | 0.705 |
| Patient 4 | 0.331 | 0.391 | 0.425 | 0.495 | 0.412 | 0.573 |
| Patient 5 | 0.341 | 0.361 | 0.390 | 0.415 | 0.389 | 0.556 |
| Patient 6 | 0.201 | 0.203 | 0.242 | 0.345 | 0.315 | 0.547 |
Fig. 5Evaluation of different binary code lengths. a Means and standard deviations of recognition rates, defined as mean average precisions with top retrievals (MAP@1); b means and standard deviations of precision values with top 50 retrievals (P@50)
Fig. 6Precision-recall curves of framework evaluation on patient-specific experiments. Our hashing scheme is compared to state-of-the-art approaches on 64-bit binary code
Mean average precisions for retrieval performance. Our entire framework is compared to state-of-the-art hashing schemes (using 64-bit) and a previous retargeting approach
| Methods | EVM | AGH | ITQ | LFH | CSH | KSH | Fasthash | Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | 0.238 | 0.340 | 0.145 | 0.460 | 0.709 | 0.686 | 0.802 | 0.920 |
| Patient 2 | 0.304 | 0.579 | 0.408 | 0.642 | 0.899 | 0.921 | 0.925 | 0.956 |
| Patient 3 | 0.248 | 0.501 | 0.567 | 0.458 | 0.799 | 0.903 | 0.911 | 0.969 |
| Patient 4 | 0.274 | 0.388 | 0.289 | 0.585 | 0.852 | 0.889 | 0.923 | 0.957 |
| Patient 5 | 0.396 | 0.435 | 0.342 | 0.715 | 0.835 | 0.883 | 0.896 | 0.952 |
| Patient 6 | 0.273 | 0.393 | 0.298 | 0.500 | 0.641 | 0.669 | 0.812 | 0.895 |
Fig. 7Example results for Patients 1–3. Top ranked retrievals based on Hamming distances, with blue-, green-, and yellow-border images being queries for retargeting, correct retargeting, and incorrect retargeting results, respectively
Fig. 8Example results for Patients 4–6. Top ranked retrievals based on Hamming distances, with blue-, green-, and yellow-border images being queries for retargeting, correct retargeting and incorrect retargeting results, respectively