Cited by 1,135Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMedical Imaging and AnalysisAnatomy and Medical Technology

Comparison and evaluation of methods for liver segmentation from CT datasets

Heimann, T., van Ginneken, B., Styner, M.A., Arzhaeva, Y., Aurich, V., Bauer, C., Beck, A., Becker, C. +42 more·2009·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison study between 10 automatic and six interactive methods for liver segmentation from contrast-enhanced CT images. It is based on results from the "MICCAI 2007 Grand Challenge" workshop, where 16 teams evaluated their algorithms on a common database. A collection of 20 clinical images with reference segmentations was provided to train and tune algorithms in advance. Participants were also allowed to use additional proprietary training data for that purpose. All teams then had to apply their methods to 10 test datasets and submit the obtained results. Employed algorithms include statistical shape models, atlas registration, level-sets, graph-cuts and rule-based systems. All results were compared to reference segmentations five error measures that highlight different aspects of segmentation accuracy. All measures were combined according to a specific scoring system relating the obtained values to human expert variability. In general, interactive methods reached higher average scores than automatic approaches and featured a better consistency of segmentation quality. However, the best automatic methods (mainly based on statistical shape models with some additional free deformation) could compete well on the majority of test images. The study provides an insight in performance of different segmentation approaches under real-world conditions and highlights achievements and limitations of current image analysis techniques.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2009.2013851

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heimann, T., van Ginneken, B., Styner, M. A., Arzhaeva, Y., Aurich, V., Bauer, C., Beck, A., Becker, C., Beichel, R., Bekes, G., Bello, F., Binnig, G., Bischof, H., Bornik, A., Cashman, P., Chi, Y., Cordova, A., Dawant, B. M., Fidrich, M., Furst, J. D., Furukawa, D., Grenacher, L., Hornegger, J., Kainmuller, D., Kitney, R. I., Kobatake, H., Lamecker, H., Lange, T., Lee, J., Lennon, B., Li, R., Li, S., Meinzer, H.-P., Nemeth, G., Raicu, D. S., Rau, A.-M., van Rikxoort, E. M., Rousson, M., Rusko, L., Saddi, K. A., Schmidt, G., Seghers, D., Shimizu, A., Slagmolen, P., Sorantin, E., Soza, G., Susomboon, R., Waite, J. M., Wimmer, A., & Wolf, I.
Affiliations
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
  • Graz University of Technology (AT)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • GE Healthcare (Hungary) (HU)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Clínica Alemana (CL)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • DePaul University (US)
  • Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology (JP)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
  • Zuse Institute Berlin (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Catholic University of Korea (KR)
  • Siemens (United States) (US)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • Siemens Healthineers (Germany) (DE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2009-08
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
1251-1265
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2153431772
Cited by
1,135
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 52
FWCI
49.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MDC Repository (Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Anatomy and Medical Technology
Keywords
liver segmentation, contrast-enhanced CT, automatic segmentation, interactive segmentation, statistical shape models, atlas registration, level sets, graph cuts, rule-based systems
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Liver, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Databases, Factual

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