4.6 Article

A New Approach to Segment Both Main and Peripheral Retinal Vessels Based on Gray-Voting and Gaussian Mixture Model

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127748

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81171420]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vessel segmentation in retinal fundus images is a preliminary step to clinical diagnosis for some systemic diseases and some eye diseases. The performances of existing methods for segmenting small vessels which are usually of more importance than the main vessels in a clinical diagnosis are not satisfactory in clinical use. In this paper, we present a method for both main and peripheral vessel segmentation. A local gray-level change enhancement algorithm called gray-voting is used to enhance the small vessels, while a two-dimensional Gabor wavelet is used to extract the main vessels. We fuse the gray-voting results with the 2D-Gabor filter results as pre-processing outcome. A Gaussian mixture model is then used to extract vessel clusters from the pre-processing outcome, while small vessels fragments are obtained using another gray-voting process, which complements the vessel cluster extraction already performed. At the last step, we eliminate the fragments that do not belong to the vessels based on the shape of the fragments. We evaluated the approach with two publicly available DRIVE (Staal et al., 2004) and STARE (Hoover et at., 2000) datasets with manually segmented results. For the STARE dataset, when using the second manually segmented results which include much more small vessels than the first manually segmented results as the gold standard, this approach achieved an average sensitivity, accuracy and specificity of 65.0%, 92.1% and 97.0%, respectively. The sensitivities of this approach were much higher than those of the other existing methods, with comparable specificities; these results thus demonstrated that this approach was sensitive to detection of small vessels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据