2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10489-021-02297-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adaptive channel and multiscale spatial context network for breast mass segmentation in full-field mammograms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The new upsampling block could effectively extract important information from high-level and low-level features, while a channelattention approach was used to refine these features. Zhao et al 39 tried to embed an adaptive channel and multiscale spatial context module (ACMSC) in the ResNet-backbone U-Net. The ACMSC module took advantage of the self -attention mechanism to adaptively highlight information-rich channels.…”
Section: Mass Segmentation Methods Based On Cnnsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The new upsampling block could effectively extract important information from high-level and low-level features, while a channelattention approach was used to refine these features. Zhao et al 39 tried to embed an adaptive channel and multiscale spatial context module (ACMSC) in the ResNet-backbone U-Net. The ACMSC module took advantage of the self -attention mechanism to adaptively highlight information-rich channels.…”
Section: Mass Segmentation Methods Based On Cnnsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compared the performance achieved by the proposed EU-Net with the existing approaches, namely ARF-Net [31], FS-Unet [32], Li et al [10], ACMSCNet [33], Connected ResUNets [34], and DS U-Net [12] on the INBreast, and CBIS-DDSM datasets. These approaches employed different evaluation protocols: ARF-Net [31], Li et al [10], and DS U-Net [12] employed the official train/test split provided in the dataset, whereas FS-Unet [32], ACMSCNet [33], Connected ResUNets [34] employed customs data-splits. Therefore we re-evaluated our model with those evaluation protocols for a fair comparison.…”
Section: Comparison With Existing Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compared the performance achieved by the proposed EU-Net with the existing approaches, namely ARF-Net [31], FS-Unet [32], Li et al [10], ACMSCNet [33], Connected ResUNets [34], and DS U-Net [12] on the INBreast, and CBIS-DDSM datasets. These approaches employed different evaluation protocols: ARF-Net [31], Li et al [10], and DS U-Net [12] employed the official train/test split provided in the dataset, whereas FS-Unet [32], ACMSCNet [33], Connected ResUNets [34] employed customs data-splits. Therefore we re-evaluated our model with those evaluation protocols for a fair comparison.…”
Section: Comparison With Existing Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%