Lymph node detection and segmentation in chest CT data using discriminative learning and a spatial prior
Abstract
Lymph nodes have high clinical relevance and routinely need to be considered in clinical practice. Automatic detection is, however, challenging due to clutter and low contrast. In this paper, a method is presented that fully automatically detects and segments lymph nodes in 3-D computed tomography images of the chest. Lymph nodes can easily be confused with other structures, it is therefore vital to incorporate as much anatomical prior knowledge as possible in order to achieve a good detection performance. Here, a learned prior of the spatial distribution is used to model this knowledge. Different prior types with increasing complexity are proposed and compared to each other. This is combined with a powerful discriminative model that detects lymph nodes from their appearance. It first generates a number of candidates of possible lymph node center positions. Then, a segmentation method is initialized with a detected candidate. The graph cuts method is adapted to the problem of lymph nodes segmentation. We propose a setting that requires only a single positive seed and at the same time solves the small cut problem of graph cuts. Furthermore, we propose a feature set that is extracted from the segmentation. A classifier is trained on this feature set and used to reject false alarms. Cross-validation on 54 CT datasets showed that for a fixed number of four false alarms per volume image, the detection rate is well more than doubled when using the spatial prior. In total, our proposed method detects mediastinal lymph nodes with a true positive rate of 52.0% at the cost of only 3.1 false alarms per volume image and a true positive rate of 60.9% with 6.1 false alarms per volume image, which compares favorably to prior work on mediastinal lymph node detection.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 72
- Authors
- Feulner, J., Kevin Zhou, S., Hammon, M., Hornegger, J., & Comaniciu, D.
- Affiliations
- Universitätsklinikum Erlangen (DE)
- Siemens (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Medical Image Analysis
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 254-270
- ISSN
- 1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2085370032
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 4.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Keywords
- lymph node detection, lymph node segmentation, chest CT, mediastinal lymph nodes, spatial priors, discriminative learning, graph cuts, false alarm rejection, anatomical prior knowledge
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Lymph Nodes, Lymphatic Metastasis, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Radiographic Image Enhancement, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Sensitivity and Specificity, Radiography, Thoracic, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Discriminant Analysis
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