2020
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2004.03271
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Autoencoders for Unsupervised Anomaly Segmentation in Brain MR Images: A Comparative Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Eq. [4][5][6]: n is the number of voxels in the image, m is the dimensionality of the discriminator feature space, f (x) the activation on the intermediate layer of D and κ is a weighting parameter.…”
Section: Encoder Trainingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Eq. [4][5][6]: n is the number of voxels in the image, m is the dimensionality of the discriminator feature space, f (x) the activation on the intermediate layer of D and κ is a weighting parameter.…”
Section: Encoder Trainingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…You et al [25] detect brain tumors using a Gaussian Mixture VAE with restoration of the latent space, while Pawlowski et al [18] use Bayesian Auto-encoders to detect traumatic brain injury lesions. In a very recent comparative study on brain AD, the performance of f-AnoGAN is remarkable in diverse datasets [4]. All of these 2D-based approaches have several drawbacks: i) they do not consider volumetric information and, consequently, they do not effectively handle the complex brain anatomy; ii) they have to consider the whole brain image since there is no prior information of the anomaly localization; iii) they require multiple models for evaluating an entire scan.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unsupervised learning methods are not included in this survey since an excellent comprehensive survey of these is already provided by Baur et al [8]. As a general note, supervised methods tend to perform better than unsupervised methods for MS lesion segmentation, given the difficulty of the task ( [14,17]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other words, most of the scans during the screening are from normal subjects, and only a few subjects are the abnormal with a large intraclass variation. To address these issues, recently, unsupervised deep anomaly detection methods [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] have been introduced based on autoencoder-based reconstruction methods [10] or variational autoencoders (VAE) [11]. These methods train a model on large-sized normal scans and detect abnormal scans by calculating reconstruction error because abnormal scans are out-of-distribution, making the model have difficulties reconstructing abnormal areas.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%