4.7 Article

Trophectoderm segmentation in human embryo images via inceptioned U-Net

Journal

MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS
Volume 62, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2019.101612

Keywords

Trophectoderm segmentation; Deep learning; Medical image analysis; IVF; Human embryo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Trophectoderm (TE) is one of the main components of a day-5 human embryo (blastocyst) that correlates with the embryo's quality. Precise segmentation of TE is an important step toward achieving automatic human embryo quality assessment based on morphological image features. Automatic segmentation of TE, however, is a challenging task and previous work on this is quite limited. In this paper, four fully convolutional deep models are proposed for accurate segmentation of trophectoderm in microscopic images of the human blastocyst. In addition, a multi-scaled ensembling method is proposed that aggregates five models trained at various scales offering trade-offs between the quantity and quality of the spatial information. Furthermore, synthetic embryo images are generated for the first time to address the lack of data in training deep learning models. These synthetically generated images are proven to be effective to fill the generalization gap in deep learning when limited data is available for training. Experimental results confirm that the proposed models are capable of segmenting TE regions with an average Precision, Recall, Accuracy, Dice Coefficient and Jaccard Index of 83.8%, 90.1%, 96.9%, 86.61% and 76.71%, respectively. Particularly, the proposed Inceptioned U-Net model outperforms state-of-the-art by 10.3% in Accuracy, 9.3% in Dice Coefficient and 13.7% in Jaccard Index. Further experiments are conducted to highlight the effectiveness of the proposed models compared to some recent deep learning based segmentation methods. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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