| Literature DB >> 35733571 |
Qun Li1, Linlin Liu2.
Abstract
In the field of medical image processing, due to the differences in tissues, organs, and imaging methods, obtained medical images have significant differences. With the development of intelligence in medicine, an increasing number of computing optimization algorithms based on AI technology have also been applied to the field of medicine. Because the image segmentation algorithm based on the semisupervised self-training algorithm solves initialization class center large randomness problem in the traditional cluster-based image segmentation algorithm, this article aims to integrate the artificial intelligence semisupervised self-training algorithm into the pathological tissue image segmentation problem. An experimental group is designed to collect sample images and the algorithm proposed in this article is used to perform image segmentation to achieve a better visual experience and images. Although there is no general image segmentation theory, many scholars have been committed to applying new concepts and new methods to image segmentation in recent years and combining specific theoretical image segmentation methods has achieved good application results in image segmentation. For example, wavelet analysis, wavelet transform, neural networks, and genetic algorithms can effectively improve the segmentation effect. The results of the Seg cutting method designed in this article show that, in retinal blood vessel segmentation results on a database of healthy people, the sensitivity value is 0.941633, the false-positive rate is 0.952933, the specificity is 0.956787, and the accuracy rate is 0.96182, which are all higher than those in other methods. Image cutting methods such as FNN, CNN, and AWN have addressed the case tissue image cutting problem. Using the Seg cutting method designed in this article to segment the retinal blood vessels on a diabetes patient database, the sensitivity value is 0.8106, the false-positive rate is 0.0511, the specificity is 0.9712, the accuracy is 0.9421, and the false-positive rate is omitted. The false-positive rate is lower than AWN, and other indicators are higher than FNN, CNN, AWN, and other image cutting methods. The application of artificial intelligence-based semisupervised self-training algorithms in pathological tissue image segmentation is realized.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35733571 PMCID: PMC9208962 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3500592
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Deep neural network detection effect image.
Figure 2Branch background image.
Figure 3Background image of branches after image segmentation.
Comparison table of ICPR 2016 results of different methods.
| Precision | Recall | F-score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| WARWICK | 0.451 | 0.573 | 0.514 |
| UTRECHT | 0.511 | 0.681 | 0.582 |
| NEC | 0.741 | 0.591 | 0.654 |
| IPAL | 0.691 | 0.741 | 0.718 |
| DNN (Deep Neural Networks) | 0.881 | 0.700 | 0.783 |
| DRN (Distributed Routing Network) | 0.789 | 0.802 | 0.791 |
|
|
|
|
|
Test set evaluation results.
| Number | TP | FP | FN | Precision | Recall | F-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slide A06 | 38 | 5 | 26 | 0.601 | 0.883 | 0.718 |
| Slide A08 | 31 | 33 | 24 | 0.564 | 0.483 | 0.520 |
| Slide A09 | 41 | 21 | 13 | 0.766 | 0.651 | 0.704 |
| Slide A13 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | — |
| Slide A16 | 29 | 44 | 3 | 0.904 | 0.396 | 0.553 |
ICPR 2016 results comparison table of different methods.
| Method | Precision | Recall | F-score |
|---|---|---|---|
| STRASBOURG | — | — | 0.024 |
| YILDIZ | — | — | 0.167 |
| MINES-CURIE | — | — | 0.235 |
| CUHK | — | — | 0.356 |
| RCasNN | 0.361 | 0.423 | 0.389 |
| CasNN | 0.460 | 0.507 | 0.483 |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4Comparison of the detection accuracy of two methods.
Comparison of the detection efficiency of the two methods.
| Method | The first step is the detection time required per photo | The second step is the detection time required per photo (s) |
|---|---|---|
| CNN + SW | 20 mins | 4.2891 |
| FCN + CNN | 165.2181 s | 1.7579 |
| SegNet + CNN | 1.10193 s | 1.6127 |
Comparison between the algorithm in this paper and the variance in the blood vessel enhancement image obtained by FCN (fully convolutional networks).
| HRF_healthy | a | b | c | d | e |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SegNet + CNN | 71.9248 | 95.0557 | 81.6188 | 57.3821 | 59.1564 |
| FCN | 106.3369 | 112.8018 | 157.8544 | 91.5548 | 101.3254 |
| HRF_healthy | A | B | C | D | E |
| SegNet + CNN | 73.4818 | 175.9354 | 70.3381 | 82.4703 | 193.1479 |
| FCN | 177.9209 | 254.7669 | 77.3720 | 168.5366 | 191.3804 |
Figure 5HRF_Healthy database retinal vessel segmentation results.
Figure 6Diabetes database retinal blood vessel segmentation results.
Comparison of the effectiveness of the Seg cutting method between healthy and diabetic patients.
| Seg cutting method | Sensitivity | False-positive | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal person database | 0.941633 | 0.952933 | 0.956787 | 0.96182 |
| Diabetes database | 0.8106 | 0.0511 | 0.9712 | 0.9421 |