No abstract

Recently, a novel learning algorithm called extreme learning machine (ELM) was proposed for efficiently training single-hidden-layer feedforward neural networks (SLFNs). It was much faster than the traditional gradient-descent-based learning algorithms due to the analytical determination of output weights with the random choice of input weights and hidden layer biases. However, this algorithm often requires a large number of hidden units and thus slowly responds to new observations. Evolutionary extreme learning machine (E-ELM) was proposed to overcome this problem; it used the differential evolution algorithm to select the input weights and hidden layer biases. However, this algorithm required much time for searching optimal parameters with iterative processes and was not suitable for data sets with a large number of input features. In this paper, a new approach for training SLFNs is proposed, in which the input weights and biases of hidden units are determined based on a fast regularized least-squares scheme. Experimental results for many real applications with both small and large number of input features show that our proposed approach can achieve good generalization performance with much more compact networks and extremely high speed for both learning and testing.

OBJECTIVE Our purpose was to develop an accurate automated 3D liver segmentation scheme for measuring liver volumes on MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Our scheme for MRI liver volumetry consisted of three main stages. First, the preprocessing stage was applied to T1-weighted MRI of the liver in the portal venous phase to reduce noise and produce the boundary-enhanced image. This boundary-enhanced image was used as a speed function for a 3D fast-marching algorithm to generate an initial surface that roughly approximated the shape of the liver. A 3D geodesic-active-contour segmentation algorithm refined the initial surface to precisely determine the liver boundaries. The liver volumes determined by our scheme were compared with those manually traced by a radiologist, used as the reference standard. RESULTS The two volumetric methods reached excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.98) without statistical significance (p = 0.42). The average (± SD) accuracy was 99.4% ± 0.14%, and the average Dice overlap coefficient was 93.6% ± 1.7%. The mean processing time for our automated scheme was 1.03 ± 0.13 minutes, whereas that for manual volumetry was 24.0 ± 4.4 minutes (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION The MRI liver volumetry based on our automated scheme agreed excellently with reference-standard volumetry, and it required substantially less completion time.

We developed a fully automated liver volumetry scheme in MR, which does not require any interaction by users. It was evaluated with cases from multiple medical centers. The liver volumetry performance of our developed system was comparable to that of the gold standard manual volumetry, and it saved radiologists' time for manual liver volumetry of 24.7 min per case.

Objective. Our objective is to develop a computerized scheme for liver tumor segmentation in MR images. Materials and Methods. Our proposed scheme consists of four main stages. Firstly, the region of interest (ROI) image which contains the liver tumor region in the T1-weighted MR image series was extracted by using seed points. The noise in this ROI image was reduced and the boundaries were enhanced. A 3D fast marching algorithm was applied to generate the initial labeled regions which are considered as teacher regions. A single hidden layer feedforward neural network (SLFN), which was trained by a noniterative algorithm, was employed to classify the unlabeled voxels. Finally, the postprocessing stage was applied to extract and refine the liver tumor boundaries. The liver tumors determined by our scheme were compared with those manually traced by a radiologist, used as the “ground truth.” Results. The study was evaluated on two datasets of 25 tumors from 16 patients. The proposed scheme obtained the mean volumetric overlap error of 27.43% and the mean percentage volume error of 15.73%. The mean of the average surface distance, the root mean square surface distance, and the maximal surface distance were 0.58 mm, 1.20 mm, and 6.29 mm, respectively.