4.6 Article

Endoscopic Image Classification and Retrieval using Clustered Convolutional Features

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10916-017-0836-y

关键词

Image retrieval; Features extraction; Convolution; Classification; Spatial pooling; Endoscopy

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea Government (MSIP) [2016R1A2B4011712]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A2B4011712] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the growing use of minimally invasive surgical procedures, endoscopic video archives are growing at a rapid pace. Efficient access to relevant content in such huge multimedia archives require compact and discriminative visual features for indexing and matching. In this paper, we present an effective method to represent images using salient convolutional features. Convolutional kernels from the first layer of a pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN) are analyzed and clustered into multiple distinct groups, based on their sensitivity to colors and textures. Dominant features detected by each cluster are collected into a single, layout-preserving feature map using a spatial maximal activator pooling (SMAP) approach. A moving window based structured pooling method then captures spatial layout features and global shape information from the aggregated feature map to populate feature histograms. Finally, individual histograms for each cluster are combined into a single comprehensive feature histogram. Clustering convolutional feature space allow extraction of color and texture features of varying strengths. Further, the SMAP approach enable us to select dominant discriminative features. The proposed features are compact and capable of conveniently outperforming several existing features extraction approaches in retrieval and classification tasks on endoscopy images dataset.

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