3.8 Proceedings Paper

A No-Reference Quality Metric for Retinal Vessel Tree Segmentation

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-00928-1_10

关键词

-

资金

  1. ERDF -European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation - COMPETE 2020 Programme
  2. National Funds through the FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [CMUP-ERI/TIC/0028/2014]
  3. FCT [SFRH/BD/122365/2016]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [CMUP-ERI/TIC/0028/2014, SFRH/BD/122365/2016] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to inevitable differences between the data used for training modern CAD systems and the data encountered when they are deployed in clinical scenarios, the ability to automatically assess the quality of predictions when no expert annotation is available can be critical. In this paper, we propose a new method for quality assessment of retinal vessel tree segmentations in the absence of a reference ground-truth. For this, we artificially degrade expert-annotated vessel map segmentations and then train a CNN to predict the similarity between the degraded images and their corresponding ground-truths. This similarity can be interpreted as a proxy to the quality of a segmentation. The proposed model can produce a visually meaningful quality score, effectively predicting the quality of a vessel tree segmentation in the absence of a manually segmented reference. We further demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by applying it to automatically find a threshold for soft probabilistic segmentations on a per-image basis. For an independent state-of-the-art unsupervised vessel segmentation technique, the thresholds selected by our approach lead to statistically significant improvements in F1-score (+2.67%) and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (+3.11%) over the thresholds derived from ROC analysis on the training set. The score is also shown to correlate strongly with F1 and MCC when a reference is available.

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

3.8
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