| Literature DB >> 29758959 |
Xinzi He1, Zhen Yu1, Tianfu Wang1, Baiying Lei1, Yiyan Shi2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy imaging has been a routine examination approach for skin lesion diagnosis. Accurate segmentation is the first step for automatic dermoscopy image assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Dermoscopy image; deep residual network; dense deconvolution net; hierarchical supervision; skin lesion segmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29758959 PMCID: PMC6004941 DOI: 10.3233/THC-174633
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Technol Health Care ISSN: 0928-7329 Impact factor: 1.285
Figure 1.Illustration of challenges of automatic segmentation of skin lesions in dermoscopy images. The main challenge includes distinguishable inter-class, indistinguishable intra-class variations, artifacts and inherent cutaneous features in natural images. (a–c) skin lesions are covered with hairs or exploded with blood vessels; (d) air bubbles and marks occlude the skin lesions; (e–f) dye concentration downgrades the segmentation accuracy. Note that white contours indicate the skin lesions.
Figure 2.Flowchart of the proposed network architecture for melanoma segmentation; (a) Multi-path processing to fuse various contrast information with deep supervision; (b) Comparison of Dice loss and Classification loss; (c) dense deconvolution layer further refines the contour.
Figure 3.Illustration of proposed method; (a) Deep RefineNet; (b) residual block; (c) chained residual pooling; (b) dense deconvolution block.
Segmentation results of ISBI 2016 and 2017 dataset
| Network | Parameter | DC | JA | AC | Dataset | DC | JA | AC | Dataset | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCRN [ | 91M | 0.689 | 0.816 | 0.905 | 2016 | 0.814 | 0.721 | 0.928 | 2017 | 0.153 |
| RN | 410M | 0.890 | 0.824 | 0.941 | 2016 | 0.828 | 0.735 | 0.931 | 2017 | 0.245 |
| RN-CRF | 410M | 0.908 | 0.841 | 0.952 | 2016 | 0.830 | 0.741 | 0.934 | 2017 | 0.320 |
| RN-ML-CRF | 410M | 0.924 | 0.860 | 0.956 | 2016 | 0.843 | 0.758 | 0.938 | 2017 | 0.343 |
| RN-ML-DDL | 412M | 0.931 | 0.871 | 0.960 | 2016 | 0.845 | 0.761 | 0.939 | 2017 | 0.253 |
Segmentation algorithm comparison based on ISBI 2016 and 2017 dataset
| Method | DC | JA | AC | Dataset | Method | DC | JA | AC | Dataset |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXB | 0.910 | 0.843 | 0.953 | 2016 | ResNet [ | 0.842 | 0.758 | 0.934 | 2017 |
| CUMED | 0.897 | 0.829 | 0.949 | 2016 | RECOD [ | 0.839 | 0.754 | 0.931 | 2017 |
| Mahmudur | 0.895 | 0.822 | 0.952 | 2016 | FCN [ | 0.837 | 0.752 | 0.930 | 2017 |
| SFU-mial | 0.885 | 0.811 | 0.944 | 2016 | SMCP [ | 0.839 | 0.749 | 0.930 | 2017 |
| UiT-Seg | 0.881 | 0.806 | 0.939 | 2016 | INESC TECNALIA [ | 0.810 | 0.718 | 0.922 | 2017 |
| Our proposed | 0.931 | 0.871 | 0.960 | 2016 | Our proposed | 0.845 | 0.761 | 0.939 | 2017 |
Figure 4.Segmentation results of various methods. The pink and white contours denote the segmentation results of our method and ground truth, respectively. The upper rows are FCRN method and the bottom rows are the proposed method.