| Literature DB >> 35747726 |
Zhong Li1, Hongyi Wang1, Qi Han1, Jingcheng Liu2, Mingyang Hou1, Guorong Chen1, Yuan Tian1, Tengfei Weng1.
Abstract
Melanoma segmentation based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) has recently attracted extensive attention. However, the features captured by CNN are always local that result in discontinuous feature extraction. To solve this problem, we propose a novel multiscale feature fusion network (MSFA-Net). MSFA-Net can extract feature information at different scales through a multiscale feature fusion structure (MSF) in the network and then calibrate and restore the extracted information to achieve the purpose of melanoma segmentation. Specifically, based on the popular encoder-decoder structure, we designed three functional modules, namely MSF, asymmetric skip connection structure (ASCS), and calibration decoder (Decoder). In addition, a weighted cross-entropy loss and two-stage learning rate optimization strategy are designed to train the network more effectively. Compared qualitatively and quantitatively with the representative neural network methods with encoder-decoder structure, such as U-Net, the proposed method can achieve advanced performance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35747726 PMCID: PMC9213118 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8390997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Targets with small shape (a), prominent shape (b), and edge irregular (c). (d), (e), and (f) are their original labels, respectively.
Figure 2MSFA-net.
Figure 3MSF: (a) r1 and (b) r (i = 2, 3, 4, 5).
Figure 4A 3 × 3 convolution block for preliminary information filtering, and we connect a 1 × 3 convolution block to a 3 × 1 convolution block in parallel and extract the horizontal and vertical spatial features, respectively.
Figure 5The decoder structure fuses the characteristics of the bridge structure and the encoding structure to form high-level information and finally restores it to the segmentation result.
We compare the results of different rate combinations and introduce scSE into the multiscale feature before and after fusion. It is used to compare the impact of single and composite feature maps on global accuracy.
| Methods (scSE) ( | Dice | IoU |
|---|---|---|
| MSFA-Net (I and II) (1,2,3,15,21) | 0.9066 | 0.8311 |
| MSFA-Net (I and II) (1,2,3,9,15) | 0.9129 | 0.9112 |
| MSFA-Net (I and II) (1,3,6,12,18) | 0.9248 | 0.8852 |
| MSFA-Net (I) (1,2,3,15,21) | 0.9020 | 0.8374 |
| MSFA-Net (I) (1,2,3,9,15) | 0.9026 | 0.8228 |
| MSFA-Net (I) (1,3,6,12,18) | 0.9075 | 0.8653 |
| MSFA-Net (II) (1,2,3,15,21) | 0.8520 | 0.7972 |
| MSFA-Net (II) (1,2,3,9,15) | 0.9199 | 0.8573 |
| MSFA-Net (II) (1,3,6,12,18) |
|
|
Figure 6The effects of different interest rate combinations are compared in (a) and our model is compared with other models in (b). (a) Comparison results of different rate combinations (b) comparison results of our method with U-Net and Deeplabv3+.
Comparison of our method with other methods on Dice and IoU.
| Method | Dice | IoU |
|---|---|---|
| U-Net | 0.8777 | 0.7815 |
| Deeplabv3+ | 0.9179 | 0.8752 |
| MSFA-Net (I and II) | 0.8248 | 0.8852 |
| MSFA-Net (I) | 0.9075 | 0.8653 |
| MSFA-Net (II) |
|
|
Comparison of our method with other methods on DICE and IoU.
| Method | Paras (M) | FLOPs (G) |
|---|---|---|
| U-Net | 9.5 |
|
| Deeplabv3+ | 54.7 | 0.9 |
| MSFA-Net (I and II) | 0.49 | 3.9 |
| MSFA-Net (I) |
| 3.8 |
| MSFA-Net (II) | 0.57 | 3.9 |