Check the preview of 2nd version of this platform being developed by the open MLCommons taskforce on automation and reproducibility as a free, open-source and technology-agnostic on-prem platform.

A Fine-Grain Error Map Prediction and Segmentation Quality Assessment Framework for Whole-Heart Segmentation

lib:9cfd44ac9bf85a00 (v1.0.0)

Authors: Rongzhao Zhang,Albert C. S. Chung
ArXiv: 1907.12244
Document:  PDF  DOI 
Abstract URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.12244v1


When introducing advanced image computing algorithms, e.g., whole-heart segmentation, into clinical practice, a common suspicion is how reliable the automatically computed results are. In fact, it is important to find out the failure cases and identify the misclassified pixels so that they can be excluded or corrected for the subsequent analysis or diagnosis. However, it is not a trivial problem to predict the errors in a segmentation mask when ground truth (usually annotated by experts) is absent. In this work, we attempt to address the pixel-wise error map prediction problem and the per-case mask quality assessment problem using a unified deep learning (DL) framework. Specifically, we first formalize an error map prediction problem, then we convert it to a segmentation problem and build a DL network to tackle it. We also derive a quality indicator (QI) from a predicted error map to measure the overall quality of a segmentation mask. To evaluate the proposed framework, we perform extensive experiments on a public whole-heart segmentation dataset, i.e., MICCAI 2017 MMWHS. By 5-fold cross validation, we obtain an overall Dice score of 0.626 for the error map prediction task, and observe a high Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) of 0.972 between QI and the actual segmentation accuracy (Acc), as well as a low mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.0048 between them, which evidences the efficacy of our method in both error map prediction and quality assessment.

Relevant initiatives  

Related knowledge about this paper Reproduced results (crowd-benchmarking and competitions) Artifact and reproducibility checklists Common formats for research projects and shared artifacts Reproducibility initiatives

Comments  

Please log in to add your comments!
If you notice any inapropriate content that should not be here, please report us as soon as possible and we will try to remove it within 48 hours!