2015 International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/dicta.2015.7371256
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation Protocol of Skeletonization Applied to Grayscale Curvilinear Structures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such a comparison to the segmented image leverages the methods from the segmentation field used to create gold-standard segmentations, and provides a fixed point against which to assess a new skeletonised network in all cases. A number of other researchers have also sought to validate skeletons by comparison to binary images, (23; 5; 35), but these only consider one or two metrics in isolation, rather than formulating it as a collective. For example Table 4 shows comparison between the STAPLE segmentation and the skeletons for the medulla and FaDu Tumour datasets, across four different measures: Volume, number of connected components, Euler characteristic of the largest subnetwork (connected component), DICE score for bifircation points, and cl-sensitivity(33).…”
Section: A Metric For Skeleton Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Such a comparison to the segmented image leverages the methods from the segmentation field used to create gold-standard segmentations, and provides a fixed point against which to assess a new skeletonised network in all cases. A number of other researchers have also sought to validate skeletons by comparison to binary images, (23; 5; 35), but these only consider one or two metrics in isolation, rather than formulating it as a collective. For example Table 4 shows comparison between the STAPLE segmentation and the skeletons for the medulla and FaDu Tumour datasets, across four different measures: Volume, number of connected components, Euler characteristic of the largest subnetwork (connected component), DICE score for bifircation points, and cl-sensitivity(33).…”
Section: A Metric For Skeleton Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some metrics for comparison of the raw image data (or segmentation) and skeleton have been proposed, including bifurcation position and number, connectivity, homology etc. (24; 33; 23; 34; 35), however there is no clarity as to which of these metrics is most important or how differences in these metrics translate into differences in the networks functional properties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Standard metrics that are often used in semantic segmentation like precision, recall or the Dice coefficient are not well suited to be directly used with skeletons due to their sparseness: a shift by a single pixel can have a large impact on the result. Therefore, our main metrics for the identification of roots are skeleton completeness C p and correctness C r , which are discussed in more detail in [12] and defined as:…”
Section: Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We then compare each predicted pixel to the ground truth labels to calculate true positive rates (TPR) versus false positive rates (FPR). Specifically, for the evaluation of microvasculature, we follow a similar evaluation method mentioned in [95,96]. Dilation with disk structuring element of radius 1 is used create a buffered truth and TPR vs FPR is calculated.…”
Section: Network Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%