Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 344

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Valmet: A New Validation Tool for Assessing and Improving 3D Object Segmentation

Open access
Gerig, Guido, Jomier, Matthieu, Chakos, Miranda·2001·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Abstract

Extracting 3D structures from volumetric images like MRI or CT is becoming a routine process for diagnosis based on quantitation, for radiotherapy planning, for surgical planning and image-guided intervention, for studying neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative aspects of brain diseases, and for clinical drug trials. Key issues for segmenting anatomical objects from 3D medical images are validity and reliability. We have developed VALMET, a new tool for validation and comparison of object segmentation. New features not available in commercial and public-domain image processing packages are the choice between different metrics to describe differences between segmentations and the use of graphical overlay and 3D display for visual assessment of the locality and magnitude of segmentation variability. Input to the tool are an original 3D image (MRI, CT, ultrasound), and a series of segmentations either generated by several human raters and/or by automatic methods (machine). Quantitative evaluation includes intra-class correlation of resulting volumes and four different shape distance metrics, a) percentage overlap of segmented structures (R intersect S)/(R union S), b) probabilistic overlap measure for non-binary segmentations, c) mean/median absolute distances between object surfaces, and maximum (Hausdorff) distance. All these measures are calculated for arbitrarily selected 2D cross-sections and full 3D segmentations. Segmentation results are overlaid onto the original image data for visual comparison. A 3D graphical display of the segmented organ is color-coded depending on the selected metric for measuring segmentation difference. The new tool is in routine use for intra- and inter-rater reliability studies and for testing novel automatic machine-segmentation versus a gold standard established by human experts. Preliminary studies showed that the new tool could significantly improve intra- and inter-rater reliability of hippocampus segmentation to achieve intra-class correlation coefficients significantly higher than published elsewhere.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/3-540-45468-3_62

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 344

Metadata

Authors
Gerig, G., Jomier, M., & Chakos, M.
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2001
Pages
516-523
ISSN
0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1875387157
Cited by
344
References
0
FWCI
10.97
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Valmet: A New Validation Tool for Assessing and Improving 3D Object Segmentation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/3-540-45468-3_62
The paper
Gerig, G., Jomier, M., & Chakos, M. (2001). Valmet: A New Validation Tool for Assessing and Improving 3D Object Segmentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45468-3_62

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.