| Literature DB >> 35465003 |
Ruicong Zhang1, Li Zhuo1, Meijuan Chen1, Hongxia Yin2, Xiaoguang Li1, Zhenchang Wang2.
Abstract
The accurate vestibule segmentation from CT images is essential to the quantitative analysis of the anatomical structure of the ear. However, it is a challenging task due to the tiny size, blur boundary, and drastic variations in shape and size. In this paper, according to the specific characteristics and segmentation requirements of the vestibule, a vestibule segmentation network with a hybrid deep feature fusion of 2D CNN and 3D CNN is proposed. First, a 2D CNN is designed to extract the intraslice features through multiple deep feature fusion strategies, including a convolutional feature fusion strategy for different receptive fields, a feature channel fusion strategy based on channel attention mechanism, and an encoder-decoder feature fusion strategy. Next, a 3D DenseUNet is designed to extract the interslice features. Finally, a hybrid feature fusion module is proposed to fuse the intraslice and interslice features to effectively exploit the context information, thus achieving the accurate segmentation of the vestibule structure. At present, there is no publicly available dataset for vestibule segmentation. Therefore, the proposed segmentation method is validated on two self-established datasets, namely, VestibuleDataSet and IEBL-DataSet. It has been compared with several state-of-the-art methods on the datasets, including the general DeeplabV3+ method and specific 3D DSD vestibule segmentation method. The experimental results show that our proposed method can achieve superior segmentation accuracy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35465003 PMCID: PMC9019448 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6557593
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1An example of the vestibule structure from CT image. The vestibule is highlighted in blue.
Figure 2The framework of the proposed vestibule segmentation network.
Figure 3The framework of 2D CNN.
Parameter setting of each module of 3D DenseUNet.
| Block | Feature size | Convolution layer |
|---|---|---|
| Input | 224 × 224 × 8 | — |
| Convolution 1 | 112 × 112 × 4 | 7 × 7 × 7 × 96 conv |
| Pooling | 56 × 56 × 2 | 3 × 3 × 3 max pooling |
| Dense block 1 | 56 × 56 × 2 | (1 × 1 × 1 × 128 conv) × 3 |
| Transition layer 1 | 28 × 28 × 2 | 1 × 1 × 1 conv |
| Dense block 2 | 28 × 28 × 2 | (1 × 1 × 1 × 128 conv) × 4 |
| Transition layer 2 | 14 × 14 × 2 | 1 × 1 × 1 conv |
| Dense block 3 | 14 × 14 × 2 | (1 × 1 × 1 × 128 conv) × 12 |
| Transition layer 3 | 7 × 7 × 2 | 1 × 1 × 1 conv |
| Dense block 4 | 7 × 7 × 2 | (1 × 1 × 1 × 128 conv) × 8 |
| Upsampling layer 1 | 7 × 7 × 2 | 2 × 2 × 1 × 504 upconv |
| Sum with dense block 3 | 14 × 14 × 2 | — |
| Upsampling layer 2 | 14 × 14 × 2 | 2 × 2 × 1 × 224 upconv |
| Sum with dense block 2 | 28 × 28 × 2 | — |
| Upsampling layer 3 | 28 × 28 × 2 | 2 × 2 × 1 × 192 upconv |
| Sum with dense block 1 | 56 × 56 × 2 | — |
| Upsampling layer 4 | 56 × 56 × 2 | 2 × 2 × 2 × 96 upconv |
| Sum with convolution 1 | 112 × 112 × 4 | — |
| Upsampling layer 5 | 224 × 224 × 8 | 2 × 2 × 2 × 64 upconv |
| Output | 224 × 224 × 8 | 1 × 1 × 1 × 3 conv |
Figure 4The framework of HFF.
Comparison results of segmentation performance by using our proposed method and other methods.
| Method | DSC (%) | ASD (mm) | AVD (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| DeeplabV3+ [ | 76.36 | 0.38 | 6.95 |
| 2D CNN [ | 84.62 | 0.23 | 0.64 |
| 3D DSD [ | 83.11 | 0.19 | 0.27 |
| Ours | 87.00 | 0.21 | 0.24 |
Figure 5Example of segmentation results by using our proposed method.
Figure 6Comparison of segmentation results of several methods.
Comparison results using different segmentation methods on the IEBL-DataSet.
| Method | DSC (%) | ASD (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| DeeplabV3+ [ | 87.46 | 0.66 |
| 3D DSD [ | 88.17 | 0.39 |
| 2D CNN [ | 87.59 | 0.74 |
| Ours | 89.15 | 0.41 |
Figure 7The visualization comparison results of IEBL-DataSet. (a) The ground truth. (b) The segmented results of our proposed method. (c–e) The segmentation results obtained by using the three comparison methods, respectively.
Parameter scale of different methods.
| Method | Parameter scale |
|---|---|
| UNet [ | 7.77 MB |
| DeeplabV3+ [ | 41 MB |
| 3D DSD [ | 9.86 MB |
| Ours | 95.4 MB |
Effect of different modules on segmentation performance.
| Method | DSC (%) | ASD (mm) | AVD (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 85.70 | 0.24 | 1.80 |
| A+B | 86.65 | 0.22 | 0.25 |
| A+B+C | 87.00 | 0.21 | 0.24 |