2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2107.04062
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of 2D vs. 3D U-Net Organ Segmentation in abdominal 3D CT images

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...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A two-dimensional (2D) MultiResUNet implementation was used, such that individual image slices are used as model input. Upon reviewing the literature to compare the performance of OAR segmentation models using 2D and three-dimensional (3D) U-Net [23,24], it was found that 2D U-Net often performs as well or better than 3D U-Net, and we, therefore, hypothesized that repeating model training with a 3D-architecture would not be significantly beneficial for the present study.…”
Section: Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A two-dimensional (2D) MultiResUNet implementation was used, such that individual image slices are used as model input. Upon reviewing the literature to compare the performance of OAR segmentation models using 2D and three-dimensional (3D) U-Net [23,24], it was found that 2D U-Net often performs as well or better than 3D U-Net, and we, therefore, hypothesized that repeating model training with a 3D-architecture would not be significantly beneficial for the present study.…”
Section: Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[46][47][48] Because of this issue, studies have shown that 2D architectures can sometimes be trained more optimally and perform equivalently or even outperform 3D networks. [46][47][48] Our network was applied to the segmentation of the prostate gland only primarily because our primary CT dataset was limited to the availability of the prostate contours only, and our secondary dataset consisted of multiple clinician contours for the prostate gland only.We are working on the acquisition of manual contours for normal organs, which we will evaluate as part of a future study. Additionally, we intend to compare results of our network with that of other newer architectures, such as deeply supervised U-Net, spatial transformer network, and mask R-CNN.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, 3D models are typically much more complex and require significantly more computational time, and memory resources, which confound the optimal training of these models. [46][47][48] Because of this issue, studies have shown that 2D architectures can sometimes be trained more optimally and perform equivalently or even outperform 3D networks. [46][47][48] Our network was applied to the segmentation of the prostate gland only primarily because our primary CT dataset was limited to the availability of the prostate contours only, and our secondary dataset consisted of multiple clinician contours for the prostate gland only.We are working on the acquisition of manual contours for normal organs, which we will evaluate as part of a future study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerous approaches and data types have been used in considerable research on the effectiveness of models in a variety of activities. Zettler et al show that 2D U-Net models are more effective than 3D U-Net models in terms of speed and low memory costs [3]. Even while the 3D model had slightly more favorable results than the other model, they all concluded that this couldn’t possibly justify the computer resources that were wasted on it.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%