| Literature DB >> 35755976 |
Patike Kiran Rao1, Subarna Chatterjee2, Sreedhar Sharma3.
Abstract
Background: Accurate semantic segmentation of kidney tumors in computed tomography (CT) images is difficult because tumors feature varied forms and occasionally, look alike. The KiTs19 challenge sets the groundwork for future advances in kidney tumor segmentation.Entities:
Keywords: Depth-wise separable convolution; kidney; kidney tumor segmentation; pruning; weight pruning-UNet
Year: 2022 PMID: 35755976 PMCID: PMC9215835 DOI: 10.4103/jmss.jmss_108_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Signals Sens ISSN: 2228-7477
Figure 1An example of computed tomography scan images from the KiTs19 Challenge dataset.
Figure 2An overview of the detailed architecture of weight pruning-UNet
Figure 3Components of the weight pruning-UNet block
Comparison of results between weight pruning-UNet and other models
| Model | Training loss | Training accuracy | Mean IOU |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNet | 0.5601 | 97.87 | 0.435 |
| UNet (depth-wise + BN) | 0.4439 | 93.62 | 0.362 |
| WP-UNet (network pruning + depth-wise + BN) | 0.066 | 98.43 | 0.428 |
BN – Batch normalization; WP – Weight pruning; IOU – Intersection over union
Computational comparison between weight pruning-UNet and other models
| Model | Parameters | Flops |
|---|---|---|
| UNet | 5,680,353 | 62.4e |
| UNet (depth-wise + BN) | 2,601,921 | 7.8e |
| WP-UNet (network pruning + depth-wise + BN) | 1,297,441 | 7.2e |
BN – Batch normalization; WP – Weight pruning
Figure 4Weight pruning-UNet shows faster converges and better performance during training
Figure 5Illustrations of original input computed tomography images and their respective kidney and tumor segmented output images
Figure 6Sample kidney and tumor regions
Figure 7Weight pruning-UNet network pruning