| Literature DB >> 34149344 |
Yi Li1,2, Junli Zhao1, Zhihan Lv1, Zhenkuan Pan3.
Abstract
This article proposes a multimode medical image fusion with CNN and supervised learning, in order to solve the problem of practical medical diagnosis. It can implement different types of multimodal medical image fusion problems in batch processing mode and can effectively overcome the problem that traditional fusion problems that can only be solved by single and single image fusion. To a certain extent, it greatly improves the fusion effect, image detail clarity, and time efficiency in a new method. The experimental results indicate that the proposed method exhibits state-of-the-art fusion performance in terms of visual quality and a variety of quantitative evaluation criteria. Its medical diagnostic background is wide.Entities:
Keywords: CNN; deep learning; image fusion; medical diagnostic; multi-modal medical image
Year: 2021 PMID: 34149344 PMCID: PMC8206541 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.638976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Training process of CNN.
FIGURE 2Convolution process.
FIGURE 3Model of supervised image fusion based on CNN.
FIGURE 4Databases of learning images.
FIGURE 5Databases of learning images.
FIGURE 6Experiment results on images: (A) original image—A; (B) original image—B; (C) experiment results of image fusion.
FIGURE 7Experiment results on multifocus images: (A) original image—A; (B) original image—B; (C) Liu; (d) Li.
Comparison of results.
| Indices | Indices | |||||||||||
| Test images no. | RMSE | PSNR | Entropy | REL | SSIM | H | MI | Mean | STD | ENT | GRAD | Time (s) |
| Test 1 | 0.3695 | 8.6466 | 0.8918 | 0.2014 | 0.9943 | 0.1987 | 0.0580 | 0.0309 | 0.1730 | 0.1987 | 0.0511 | 1.2776 |
| Test 2 | 0.3273 | 9.7007 | 0.9805 | 0.4291 | 0.9955 | 0.4939 | 0.1404 | 0.1080 | 0.3104 | 0.4939 | 0.1718 | 1.8766 |
| Test 3 | 0.3576 | 8.9332 | 1.1560 | 0.4016 | 0.9947 | 0.5146 | 0.1483 | 0.1149 | 0.3189 | 0.5146 | 0.1797 | 1.9045 |
| Test 4 | 0.4786 | 6.4112 | 2.8396 | 0.2986 | 0.9907 | 0.8361 | 0.1125 | 0.2663 | 0.4420 | 0.8361 | 0.3562 | 1.7547 |
| Test 5 | 0.4027 | 7.9010 | 1.7262 | 0.3904 | 0.9932 | 0.6382 | 0.1670 | 0.1617 | 0.3681 | 0.6382 | 0.2093 | 1.9323 |
| Test 6 | 0.4113 | 7.7176 | 1.0713 | 0.2315 | 0.9929 | 0.3335 | 0.0893 | 0.0615 | 0.2403 | 0.3335 | 0.1006 | 1.5789 |
| Test 7 | 0.3710 | 8.6134 | 0.9708 | 0.2967 | 0.9943 | 0.3194 | 0.1109 | 0.0580 | 0.2337 | 0.3194 | 0.0872 | 1.4625 |
| Test 8 | 0.4505 | 6.9269 | 2.5827 | 0.3535 | 0.9916 | 0.8121 | 0.1374 | 0.2505 | 0.4333 | 0.8121 | 0.3433 | 1.9378 |
| Test 9 | 0.5499 | 5.1947 | 3.1892 | 0.1770 | 0.9878 | 0.9378 | 0.1259 | 0.3542 | 0.4783 | 0.9378 | 0.4771 | 1.6932 |
| Test 10 | 0.4246 | 7.4413 | 1.2606 | 0.2879 | 0.9926 | 0.6866 | 0.0880 | 0.1830 | 0.3867 | 0.6866 | 0.2644 | 1.8334 |
Comparison of results.
| Indices | CT and MRI | MRI and SPECT | ||||||
| Test images no. | Q0 | Q | Q | Q | Q0 | Q | Q | Q |
| Test 1 | 0.9886 | 0.8002 | 0.8707 | 0.8911 | 0.7658 | 0.1177 | 0.5633 | 0.2164 |
| Test 2 | 0.7406 | 0.3092 | 0.7411 | 0.5919 | 0.7518 | 0.1578 | 0.5928 | 0.2431 |
| Test 3 | 0.5953 | 0.1622 | 0.4622 | 0.4257 | 0.7629 | 0.1363 | 0.5581 | 0.2239 |
| Test 4 | 0.8515 | 0.3678 | 0.8870 | 0.5432 | 0.6145 | 0.2247 | 0.6470 | 0.2701 |
| Test 5 | 0.6273 | 0.2814 | 0.6935 | 0.3949 | 0.6692 | 0.1350 | 0.5861 | 0.2359 |
| Test 6 | 0.8322 | 0.5549 | 0.8716 | 0.7103 | 0.7403 | 0.1392 | 0.5645 | 0.2381 |
| Test 7 | 0.8392 | 0.3273 | 0.8057 | 0.6090 | 0.7702 | 0.1511 | 0.5670 | 0.2276 |
| Test 8 | 0.7258 | 0.3213 | 0.7667 | 0.5359 | 0.6948 | 0.2668 | 0.6100 | 0.2897 |
| Test 9 | 0.4821 | 0.2439 | 0.6412 | 0.3240 | 0.4683 | 0.1519 | 0.6474 | 0.3281 |
| Test 10 | 0.7572 | 0.2698 | 0.6946 | 0.3338 | 0.5972 | 0.2298 | 0.6886 | 0.2961 |
FIGURE 8Comparison in block size and fusion performance of the results: (A) RMSE, (B) entropy, (C) MEAN, (D) GRAD, (E) REL, (F) STD.
FIGURE 9Comparison of experimental results in convergence (A) test image 1–4, (B) test image 5–8.