Discriminative segmentation-based evaluation through shape dissimilarity
Open accessAbstract
Segmentation-based scores play an important role in the evaluation of computational tools in medical image analysis. These scores evaluate the quality of various tasks, such as image registration and segmentation, by measuring the similarity between two binary label maps. Commonly these measurements blend two aspects of the similarity: pose misalignments and shape discrepancies. Not being able to distinguish between these two aspects, these scores often yield similar results to a widely varying range of different segmentation pairs. Consequently, the comparisons and analysis achieved by interpreting these scores become questionable. In this paper, we address this problem by exploring a new segmentation-based score, called normalized Weighted Spectral Distance (nWSD), that measures only shape discrepancies using the spectrum of the Laplace operator. Through experiments on synthetic and real data we demonstrate that nWSD provides additional information for evaluating differences between segmentations, which is not captured by other commonly used scores. Our results demonstrate that when jointly used with other scores, such as Dice's similarity coefficient, the additional information provided by nWSD allows richer, more discriminative evaluations. We show for the task of registration that through this addition we can distinguish different types of registration errors. This allows us to identify the source of errors and discriminate registration results which so far had to be treated as being of similar quality in previous evaluation studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Dice's similarity coefficient is the most widely used measure for evaluating segmentation performance.
“The Dice's similarity coefficient is the most widely used measure for evaluating segmentation performance 5 , and in our main results we focus on evaluating how well DSC can be predicted using our RCA framework.”
From Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes Dice’s similarity coefficient as an example of a popular, commonly used segmentation-based score. Section II (page unavailable) lists it among several popular measures, but does not establish that it is the most widely used. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Generalized Overlap Measures for Evaluation and Validation in Medical Image Analysis
Crum, W. R., Camara, O., & Hill, D. L. G. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2006.880587 · Cited by 776 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- [1]Maintz JB Viergever MA A survey of medical image registration Medical Image Analysis 2 1 1 36 1998 10638851
- [2]Crum WR Hartkens T Hill DL Non-rigid image registration: theory and practice Br J Radiol 77 Spec No 2 S140 153 2004 15677356
- [3]Gholipour A Kehtarnavaz N Briggs R Devous M Gopinath K Brain functional localization: a survey of image registration techniques IEEE Trans Med Imaging 26 4 427 451 4 2007 17427731
- [4]Slomka PJ Baum RP Multimodality image registration with software: state-of-the-art Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 36 Suppl 1 44 55 3 2009 19104803
- [5]Zheng Y Kambhamettu C Bauer T Steiner K Accurate estimation of pulmonary nodule’s growth rate in ct images with nonrigid registration and precise nodule detection and segmentation Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2009 CVPR Workshops 2009. IEEE Computer Society Conference on. IEEE 2009 101 108
- [6]Lorenzen P Prastawa M Davis B Gerig G Bullitt E Joshi S Multi-modal image set registration and atlas formation Medical image analysis 10 3 440 451 2006 15919231 PMC2430608
- [7]Bookstein FL “Voxel-Based Morphometry” Should Not Be Used with Imperfectly Registered Images NeuroImage 14 6 1454 1462 2001 11707101
- [8]Rohlfing T Transformation Model and Constraints Cause Bias in Statistics on Deformation Fields International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention 2006 17354892
- [9]Crum WR Griffin LD Hill DLG Hawkes DJ Zen and the Art of Medical Image Registration: Correspondence, Homology, and Quality NeuroImage 20 3 1425 1437 2003 14642457
- [10]Schnabel JA Tanner C Castellano-Smith AD Validation of Nonrigid Image Registration using Finite-Element Methods: Application to Breast MR Images IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 22 2 238 247 2003 12716000
- [11]Murphy K Van Ginneken B Reinhardt J Kabus S Ding K Deng X Cao K Du K Christensen G Garcia V Evaluation of registration methods on thoracic ct: The empire10 challenge IEEE transactions on medical imaging 30 11 1901 2011 21632295
- [12]Vandemeulebroucke J Sarrut D Clarysse P The POPI-model, a point-validated pixel-based breathing thorax model International Conference on the Use of Computers in Radiation Therapy 2007
- [13]Kabus S Klinder T Murphy K van Ginneken B Lorenz C Pluim J Evaluation of 4D-CT lung registration International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention 2009 20426055
- [14]Hellier P Barillot C Corouge I Retrospective Evaluation of Intersubject Brain Registration IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 22 9 1120 1130 2003 12956267
- [16]Song JH Christensen GE Hawley JA Wei Y Kuhl JG Evaluating Image Registration using NIREP Workshop on Biomedical Image Registration 2010
- [17]Klein A Andersson J Ardekani BA Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration NeuroImage 46 3 786 802 2009 19195496 PMC2747506
- [18]Yeo BT Sabuncu MR Desikan R Fischl B Golland P Effects of registration regularization and atlas sharpness on segmentation accuracy Medical Image Analysis 12 5 603 615 2008 18667352 PMC2615799
- [19]Rohlfing T Image Similarity and Tissue Overlaps as Surrogates for Image Registration Accuracy: Widely Used but Unreliable IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 8 2011 PMC3274625 21827972
- [21]Konukoglu E Glocker B Criminisi A Pohl KM WESD - weighted spectral distance for measuring shape dissimilarity pre-print 2012 arXiv:1208.5016v1 [cs.CV] PMC5513679 23868785 · arXiv
- [25]Protter MH Can one hear the shape of a drum? Revisited SIAM Review 29 2 185 197 6 1987
- [29]Sun J Ovsjanikov M Guibas L A concise and provably informative multi-scale signature based on heat diffusion Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing 2009
- [30]McKean HP Singer IM Curvature and the Eigenvalues of the Laplacian Journal of Differential Geometry 1 43 69 1967
- [34]Niethammer M Reuter M Wolter F-E Bouix S Peinecke N Koo M-S Shenton ME Global medical shape analysis using the Laplace-Beltrami spectrum Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention 2007 PMC2782516 18051138
- [35]Reuter M Wolter F-E Shenton M Niethammer M Laplacebeltrami eigenvalues and topological features of eigenfunctions for statistical shape analysis Computer-Aided Design 41 739 55 2009 20161035 PMC2753296
- [37]Whittaker ET Watson GN A course of modern analysis Cambridge Mathematical Library 1996
- [38]Ames WF Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations Academic Press 1977
- [39]Arnoldi WE The principle of minimized iterations in the solution of the matrix eigenvalue problem Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 9 3 17 29 1951
- [40]Vercauteren T Pennec X Perchant A Ayache N Diffeomorphic demons: Efficient non-parametric image registration NeuroImage 45 1 S61 S72 2009 19041946
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validation
Reinke, A., Tizabi, M. D., Baumgartner, M., Eisenmann, M., Heckmann-Nötzel, D., Kavur, A. E., Rädsch, T., Sudre, C. H., Acion, L., Antonelli, M., et al. (2024) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-023-02150-0 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Self-citationReverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth
Valindria, V. V., Lavdas, I., Bai, W., Kamnitsas, K., Aboagye, E. O., Rockall, A. G., Rueckert, D., & Glocker, B. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2017.2665165 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Konukoglu, E., Glocker, B., Ye, D. H., Criminisi, A., & Pohl, K. M.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2012-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2278-2289
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-254X
- PMC
- PMC5507673
- OpenAlex
- W2053721339
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Center for Research Resources (P41RR013218)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- segmentation evaluation, shape dissimilarity, Dice coefficient
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Diagnostic Imaging, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
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