4.7 Article

A Function for Quality Evaluation of Retinal Vessel Segmentations

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 231-239

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2011.2167982

Keywords

Image segmentation quality evaluation; ophthalmic pathologies diagnosis; quality evaluation function; retinal vessel segmentation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Retinal blood vessel assessment plays an important role in the diagnosis of ophthalmic pathologies. The use of digital images for this purpose enables the application of a computerized approach and has fostered the development of multiple methods for automated vascular tree segmentation. Metrics based on contingency tables for binary classification have been widely used for evaluating the performance of these algorithms. Metrics from this family are based on the measurement of a success or failure rate in the detected pixels, obtained by means of pixel-to-pixel comparison between the automated segmentation and a manually-labeled reference image. Therefore, vessel pixels are not considered as a part of a vascular structure with specific features. This paper contributes a function for the evaluation of global quality in retinal vessel segmentations. This function is based on the characterization of vascular structures as connected segments with measurable area and length. Thus, its design is meant to be sensitive to anatomical vascularity features. Comparison of results between the proposed function and other general quality evaluation functions shows that this proposal renders a high matching degree with human quality perception. Therefore, it can be used to enhance quality evaluation in retinal vessel segmentations, supplementing the existing functions. On the other hand, from a general point of view, the applied concept of measuring descriptive properties may be used to design specialized functions aimed at segmentation quality evaluation in other complex structures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available