| Literature DB >> 35009793 |
Xiaoyang Huang1, Zhi Lin1, Yudi Jiao1, Moon-Tong Chan2, Shaohui Huang1, Liansheng Wang1.
Abstract
With the rise of deep learning, using deep learning to segment lesions and assist in diagnosis has become an effective means to promote clinical medical analysis. However, the partial volume effect of organ tissues leads to unclear and blurred edges of ROI in medical images, making it challenging to achieve high-accuracy segmentation of lesions or organs. In this paper, we assume that the distance map obtained by performing distance transformation on the ROI edge can be used as a weight map to make the network pay more attention to the learning of the ROI edge region. To this end, we design a novel framework to flexibly embed the distance map into the two-stage network to improve left atrium MRI segmentation performance. Furthermore, a series of distance map generation methods are proposed and studied to reasonably explore how to express the weight of assisting network learning. We conduct thorough experiments to verify the effectiveness of the proposed segmentation framework, and experimental results demonstrate that our hypothesis is feasible.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; distance transformation; medical image segmentation; two-stage
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35009793 PMCID: PMC8749866 DOI: 10.3390/s22010250
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Internal points and isolated points.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the overall network architecture.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of the distance map generated by the three methods. (a) Euclidean distance map; (b) Error compensation distance map; (c) Edge labeled distance map.
Performance comparison between one-stage network and two-stage network.
| Network | Dice (%) | Assd (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| One-stage (baseline) | 86.34 | 9.47 |
| Two-stage | 91.38 | 1.35 |
Figure 4Exemplar segmentation results of the one-stage network and two-stage network.
Performance comparison of distance map methods.
| Network | Dice (%) | Assd (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Two-stage | 91.38 | 1.35 |
| Design with | 94.10 | 0.82 |
| Design with | 93.26 | 0.92 |
| Design with | 93.36 | 0.88 |
Figure 5Exemplar segmentation results using different methods to generate distance maps.
Performance comparison experiment of loss function.
| The First Stage | The Second Stage | Dice (%) | Assd (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAE Loss | MSE Loss | Dice Loss | Distdice Loss | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | 93.08 | 1.01 | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | 93.12 | 1.00 | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | 93.57 | 0.95 | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | 94.10 | 0.82 | ||
Figure 6Exemplar segmentation results using different combination loss functions.
Performance comparison of our method and compared methods.
| Network | Dice (%) | Assd (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| LG-ER-MT [ | 89.62 | 2.06 |
| DUWM [ | 89.65 | 2.03 |
| MC-Net [ | 90.34 | 1.77 |
| V-net [ | 90.25 | 1.91 |
| Bayesian V-Net | 91.14 | 1.52 |
| AJSQnet [ | 91.30 | 1.60 |
| Proposed | 94.10 | 0.82 |