Weakly Supervised Estimation of Shadow Confidence Maps in Fetal Ultrasound Imaging
Open accessAbstract
Detecting acoustic shadows in ultrasound images is important in many clinical and engineering applications. Real-time feedback of acoustic shadows can guide sonographers to a standardized diagnostic viewing plane with minimal artifacts and can provide additional information for other automatic image analysis algorithms. However, automatically detecting shadow regions using learning-based algorithms is challenging because pixel-wise ground truth annotation of acoustic shadows is subjective and time consuming. In this paper, we propose a weakly supervised method for automatic confidence estimation of acoustic shadow regions. Our method is able to generate a dense shadow-focused confidence map. In our method, a shadow-seg module is built to learn general shadow features for shadow segmentation, based on global image-level annotations as well as a small number of coarse pixel-wise shadow annotations. A transfer function is introduced to extend the obtained binary shadow segmentation to a reference confidence map. In addition, a confidence estimation network is proposed to learn the mapping between input images and the reference confidence maps. This network is able to predict shadow confidence maps directly from input images during inference. We use evaluation metrics such as DICE, inter-class correlation, and so on, to verify the effectiveness of our method. Our method is more consistent than human annotation and outperforms the state-of-the-art quantitatively in shadow segmentation and qualitatively in confidence estimation of shadow regions. Furthermore, we demonstrate the applicability of our method by integrating shadow confidence maps into tasks such as ultrasound image classification, multi-view image fusion, and automated biometric measurements.
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?
Meng et al. established a model for the classification of shadow-rich and shadow-free regions in various US images.
“Meng et al. established a model for the classification of shadow-rich and shadow-free regions in various US images [176]”
From Evolving the Era of 5D Ultrasound? A Systematic Literature Review on the Applications for Artificial Intelligence Ultrasound Imaging in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2023) · cites this paper as [176]
The Method > Shadow-seg Module section (page not provided) describes a model that classifies fetal ultrasound images as having a shadow or being shadow-free, and separately segments shadow regions. It does not describe classification of shadow-rich versus shadow-free regions, and its stated scope is fetal ultrasound images rather than ultrasound images generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA benefit of automated quality control algorithms was improved US image quality.
“Beside improved US image quality [176,177,178]”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 52
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [11]Centre for Workforce Intelligence Securing the future workforce supply sonography workforce review 2017
- Authors
- Meng, Q., Housden, J., Matthew, J., Rueckert, D., Schnabel, J. A., Kainz, B., Sinclair, M., Zimmer, V., Hou, B., Rajchl, M., Toussaint, N., Oktay, O., Schlemper, J., & Gomez, A.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2755-2767
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-254X
- PMC
- PMC6892638
- OpenAlex
- W2963379688
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 3.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Nvidia
- Wellcome Trust (203148/Z/16/Z, WT 203148/Z/16, 102431, WT 203148/Z/16/Z), 203148)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (EP/P001009/1, WT 203148/Z/16/Z, 102431, 203148/Z/16/Z)
- King's College London (WT203148/Z/16/Z, 203148/Z/16/Z)
- China Scholarship Council
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council ([WT203148/Z/16/Z], 102431, EP/P001009/, EP/S013687/1, EP/P001009/1, EP/N026993/1, EP/L016796/1, EP/M000133/1, WT 203148/Z/16/, 203148/ Z/16/Z)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- weakly supervised learning, prenatal ultrasound, shadow segmentation, transfer function, ultrasound image classification, multi-view image fusion
- MeSH terms
- Supervised Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Algorithms, Female, Fetus, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Pregnancy, Ultrasonography, Prenatal
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