4.7 Review

All answers are in the images: A review of deep learning for cerebrovascular segmentation

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2023.102229

关键词

Cerebrovascular segmentation; Deep learning; U-Net; Convolutional neural network; Model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cerebrovascular imaging is a common examination that has received extensive attention from researchers. Deep learning has achieved important success for cerebrovascular segmentation by deriving answers from images. This survey comprehensively reviews deep learning for cerebrovascular segmentation since 2015, providing researchers with a convenient reference.
Cerebrovascular imaging is a common examination. Its accurate cerebrovascular segmentation become an important auxiliary method for the diagnosis and treatment of cerebrovascular diseases, which has received extensive attention from researchers. Deep learning is a heuristic method that encourages researchers to derive answers from the images by driving datasets. With the continuous development of datasets and deep learning theory, it has achieved important success for cerebrovascular segmentation. Detailed survey is an important reference for researchers. To comprehensively analyze the newest cerebrovascular segmentation, we have organized and discussed researches centered on deep learning. This survey comprehensively reviews deep learning for cerebrovascular segmentation since 2015, it mainly includes sliding window based models, U-Net based models, other CNNs based models, small-sample based models, semi-supervised or unsupervised models, fusion based models, Transformer based models, and graphics based models. We organize the structures, improvement, and important parameters of these models, as well as analyze development trends and quantitative assessment. Finally, we have discussed the challenges and opportunities of possible research directions, hoping that our survey can provide researchers with convenient reference.

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

4.7
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