Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 219

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Brain Tumor Segmentation Based on Local Independent Projection-Based Classification

Huang, Meiyan, Yang, Wei, Wu, Yao, Jiang, Jun, Chen, Wufan, Feng, Qianjin·2014·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

Brain tumor segmentation is an important procedure for early tumor diagnosis and radiotherapy planning. Although numerous brain tumor segmentation methods have been presented, enhancing tumor segmentation methods is still challenging because brain tumor MRI images exhibit complex characteristics, such as high diversity in tumor appearance and ambiguous tumor boundaries. To address this problem, we propose a novel automatic tumor segmentation method for MRI images. This method treats tumor segmentation as a classification problem. Additionally, the local independent projection-based classification (LIPC) method is used to classify each voxel into different classes. A novel classification framework is derived by introducing the local independent projection into the classical classification model. Locality is important in the calculation of local independent projections for LIPC. Locality is also considered in determining whether local anchor embedding is more applicable in solving linear projection weights compared with other coding methods. Moreover, LIPC considers the data distribution of different classes by learning a softmax regression model, which can further improve classification performance. In this study, 80 brain tumor MRI images with ground truth data are used as training data and 40 images without ground truth data are used as testing data. The segmentation results of testing data are evaluated by an online evaluation tool. The average dice similarities of the proposed method for segmenting complete tumor, tumor core, and contrast-enhancing tumor on real patient data are 0.84, 0.685, and 0.585, respectively. These results are comparable to other state-of-the-art methods.

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 · 10.1109/tbme.2014.2325410

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 219

Metadata

Authors
Huang, M., Yang, W., Wu, Y., Jiang, J., Chen, W., & Feng, Q.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2014-10
Volume
61
Issue
10
Pages
2633-2645
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W2044523788
Cited by
219
References
5
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.