The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2001.11767 · v2 · pith:V7UPCQKQ · submitted 2020-01-31 · eess.IV · cs.CV· cs.LG· physics.med-ph· stat.ML

Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:V7UPCQKQrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification eess.IV cs.CVcs.LGphysics.med-phstat.ML
keywords approachesdatadatasetslungroutinesegmentationtrainedcompared
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Automated segmentation of anatomical structures is a crucial step in image analysis. For lung segmentation in computed tomography, a variety of approaches exist, involving sophisticated pipelines trained and validated on different datasets. However, the clinical applicability of these approaches across diseases remains limited. We compared four generic deep learning approaches trained on various datasets and two readily available lung segmentation algorithms. We performed evaluation on routine imaging data with more than six different disease patterns and three published data sets. Using different deep learning approaches, mean Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) on test datasets varied not over 0.02. When trained on a diverse routine dataset (n = 36) a standard approach (U-net) yields a higher DSC (0.97 $\pm$ 0.05) compared to training on public datasets such as Lung Tissue Research Consortium (0.94 $\pm$ 0.13, p = 0.024) or Anatomy 3 (0.92 $\pm$ 0.15, p = 0.001). Trained on routine data (n = 231) covering multiple diseases, U-net compared to reference methods yields a DSC of 0.98 $\pm$ 0.03 versus 0.94 $\pm$ 0.12 (p = 0.024).

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.