Cited by 72Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMedical Imaging and AnalysisRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Lymph node detection and segmentation in chest CT data using discriminative learning and a spatial prior

Feulner, Johannes, Kevin Zhou, S., Hammon, Matthias, Hornegger, Joachim, Comaniciu, Dorin·2013·Medical Image Analysis

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.media.2012.11.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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