Cited by 2,829Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Generalised Dice Overlap as a Deep Learning Loss Function for Highly Unbalanced Segmentations

Open access
Sudre, Carole H., Li, Wenqi, Vercauteren, Tom, Ourselin, Sebastien, Jorge Cardoso, M.·2017·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Abstract

Deep-learning has proved in recent years to be a powerful tool for image analysis and is now widely used to segment both 2D and 3D medical images. Deep-learning segmentation frameworks rely not only on the choice of network architecture but also on the choice of loss function. When the segmentation process targets rare observations, a severe class imbalance is likely to occur between candidate labels, thus resulting in sub-optimal performance. In order to mitigate this issue, strategies such as the weighted cross-entropy function, the sensitivity function or the Dice loss function, have been proposed. In this work, we investigate the behavior of these loss functions and their sensitivity to learning rate tuning in the presence of different rates of label imbalance across 2D and 3D segmentation tasks. We also propose to use the class re-balancing properties of the Generalized Dice overlap, a known metric for segmentation assessment, as a robust and accurate deep-learning loss function for unbalanced tasks.

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 · 10.1007/978-3-319-67558-9_28

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [1]Brosch T Yoo Y Tang LYW Li DKB Traboulsee A Tam R Deep convolutional encoder networks for multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation Navab N Hornegger J Wells WM Frangi AF MICCAI 2015. LNCS Springer Cham 2015 9351 3 11 10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_1 · DOI
  2. [5]Lai M Deep learning for medical image segmentation arXiv:1505.02000 2015 · arXiv
  3. [6]Li W Wang G Fidon L Ourselin S Cardoso MJ Vercauteren T On the compactness, efficiency, and representation of 3D convolutional networks: brain parcellation as a pretext task Niethammer M Styner M Aylward S Zhu H Oguz I Yap P-T Shen D IPMI 2017. LNCS Springer Cham 2017 10265 348 360 10.1007/978-3-319-59050-9_28 · DOI
  4. [7]Menze BH The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS) IEEE TMI 2015 34 10 1993 2024 PMC4833122 25494501
  5. [8]Milletari F Navab N Ahmadi SA V-Net: fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) IEEE 2016 10 565 571
  6. [10]Zheng Y Liu D Georgescu B Nguyen H Comaniciu D 3D deep learning for efficient and robust landmark detection in volumetric data Navab N Hornegger J Wells WM Frangi AF MICCAI 2015. LNCS Springer Cham 2015 9349 565 572 10.1007/978-3-319-24553-9_69 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sudre, C. H., Li, W., Vercauteren, T., Ourselin, S., & Jorge Cardoso, M.
Affiliations
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Sudre, Carole H.
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2017
Volume
2017
Pages
240-248
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W2734349601
Cited by
2,829
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 348 · 2025: 425 · 2024: 461 · 2023: 416 · 2022: 374 · 2021: 369 · 2020: 241 · 2019: 154 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 2
FWCI
34.60
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (EP/H046410/1, WT101957, EP/J020990/1, 101957)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (BRC10269, EP/J020990/1)
  • University College London (EP/J020990/1, EP/H046410/1, EP/K005278)
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Medical Research Council (MR/J01107X/, FP7-ICT-2011-9-601055, MR/J01107X/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/H046410, EP/K005278, H046410, MR/J01107X/1, EP/M020533/1, EP/H046410/1, EP/J020990/1, FP7-ICT-2011-9-601055, J020990, WT101957)
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council
  • UCLH Biomedical Research Centre
  • FP7 Information and Communication Technologies (FP7‐ICT‐2011‐9‐601055)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
loss functions, class imbalance, medical image segmentation, 3D segmentation, learning rate sensitivity, weighted cross-entropy, sensitivity function, Dice loss

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