| Literature DB >> 36188458 |
Yang Xu1, Xianyu He1, Guofeng Xu1, Guanqiu Qi2, Kun Yu1, Li Yin3, Pan Yang4,5, Yuehui Yin6, Hao Chen4.
Abstract
Medical image segmentation has important auxiliary significance for clinical diagnosis and treatment. Most of existing medical image segmentation solutions adopt convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Althought these existing solutions can achieve good image segmentation performance, CNNs focus on local information and ignore global image information. Since Transformer can encode the whole image, it has good global modeling ability and is effective for the extraction of global information. Therefore, this paper proposes a hybrid feature extraction network, into which CNNs and Transformer are integrated to utilize their advantages in feature extraction. To enhance low-dimensional texture features, this paper also proposes a multi-dimensional statistical feature extraction module to fully fuse the features extracted by CNNs and Transformer and enhance the segmentation performance of medical images. The experimental results confirm that the proposed method achieves better results in brain tumor segmentation and ventricle segmentation than state-of-the-art solutions.Entities:
Keywords: convolutional neural network; deep learning; medical image segmentation; neural network; transformer
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188458 PMCID: PMC9521364 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.1009581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 5.152
Figure 1The proposed medical image segmentation method based on multi-dimensional statistical features.
Figure 2The proposed hybrid network consisting of CNNs stages and Transformer stage.
Figure 3The proposed Texture Statistics Extraction Module. It is used to extract statistics at different stages.
Comparison of segmentation metrics on BraTS2018.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Myronenko | 90.40 | 4.483 | 85.90 | 8.278 | 81.40 | 3.805 | 85.90 | 5.500 |
| U-Net++ | 88.96 | 5.327 | 84.65 | 8.535 | 79.49 | 4.285 | 84.36 | 6.049 |
| CENet | 89.53 | 5.271 | 84.31 | 8.493 | 79.95 | 4.379 | 84.60 | 6.193 |
| D. Zhang | 89.60 | 5.733 | 82.40 | 9.270 | 78.20 | 3.567 | 83.40 | 6.190 |
| TransUNet | 90.25 |
|
| 5.539 | 80.41 | 3.731 | 85.95 | 4.553 |
|
|
| 4.923 | 86.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bold font represents the best result.
Comparison of segmentation metrics on medical segmentation decathlon.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| U-Net | 90.07 | 93.86 | 1.7414 |
| U-Net++ | 90.55 | 94.38 | 1.7197 |
| CENet | 90.23 | 94.17 | 1.7682 |
| TransUNet | 90.67 | 94.54 | 1.7300 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bold font represents the best result.
Figure 4Comparison of the proposed method and other state-of-the-art methods on BraTS2018.
Figure 5Comparison of the proposed method and other state-of-the-art methods on the Cardiac Dataset.
Comparison of the model size and flops cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| U-Net | 3, 224, 224 | 39.40 | 55.84 |
| U-Net++ | 3, 224, 224 | 9.34 | 34.65 |
| TransUNet | 3, 224, 224 | 105.32 | 38.52 |
| MedT | 3, 224, 224 |
| 21.24 |
|
| 3, 224, 224 | 37.25 |
|
Bold font represents the best result.
Ablation experiment results on BraTS2018.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| C-C-C-C | 88.31 | 5.322 | 86.32 | 5.531 | 80.68 | 4.293 | 85.10 | 5.049 |
| T-T-T-T | 88.15 | 5.514 | 86.19 | 6.681 | 80.64 | 4.450 | 84.99 | 5.548 |
| C-T-C-T | 89.04 | 5.357 | 86.91 | 5.554 | 80.91 | 3.315 | 85.32 | 4.742 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bold font represents the best result.
Figure 6Visual results of ablation experiments on BraTS2018.
Figure 7Performance comparison before and after adding TSEM.