We have located links that may give you full text access.
FCN-based approach for the automatic segmentation of bone surfaces in ultrasound images.
PURPOSE: A new algorithm, based on fully convolutional networks (FCN), is proposed for the automatic localization of the bone interface in ultrasound (US) images. The aim of this paper is to compare and validate this method with (1) a manual segmentation and (2) a state-of-the-art method called confidence in phase symmetry (CPS).
METHODS: The dataset used for this study was composed of 1738 US images collected from three volunteers and manually delineated by three experts. The inter- and intra-observer variabilities of this manual delineation were assessed. Images having annotations with an inter-observer variability higher than a confidence threshold were rejected, resulting in 1287 images. Both FCN-based and CPS approaches were studied and compared to the average inter-observer segmentation according to six criteria: recall, precision, F1 score, accuracy, specificity and root-mean-square error (RMSE).
RESULTS: The intra- and inter-observer variabilities were inferior to 1 mm for 90% of manual annotations. The RMSE was 1.32 ± 3.70 mm and 5.00 ± 7.70 mm for, respectively, the FCN-based approach and the CPS algorithm. The mean recall, precision, F1 score, accuracy and specificity were, respectively, 62%, 64%, 57%, 80% and 83% for the FCN-based approach and 66%, 34%, 41%, 52% and 43% for the CPS algorithm.
CONCLUSION: The FCN-based approach outperforms the CPS algorithm, and the obtained RMSE is similar to the manual segmentation uncertainty.
METHODS: The dataset used for this study was composed of 1738 US images collected from three volunteers and manually delineated by three experts. The inter- and intra-observer variabilities of this manual delineation were assessed. Images having annotations with an inter-observer variability higher than a confidence threshold were rejected, resulting in 1287 images. Both FCN-based and CPS approaches were studied and compared to the average inter-observer segmentation according to six criteria: recall, precision, F1 score, accuracy, specificity and root-mean-square error (RMSE).
RESULTS: The intra- and inter-observer variabilities were inferior to 1 mm for 90% of manual annotations. The RMSE was 1.32 ± 3.70 mm and 5.00 ± 7.70 mm for, respectively, the FCN-based approach and the CPS algorithm. The mean recall, precision, F1 score, accuracy and specificity were, respectively, 62%, 64%, 57%, 80% and 83% for the FCN-based approach and 66%, 34%, 41%, 52% and 43% for the CPS algorithm.
CONCLUSION: The FCN-based approach outperforms the CPS algorithm, and the obtained RMSE is similar to the manual segmentation uncertainty.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app