Multi-modal learning from unpaired images: application to multi-organ segmentation in CT and MRI
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks have been widely used in medical image segmentation. The amount of training data strongly determines the overall performance. Most approaches are applied for a single imaging modality, e.g., brain MRI. In practice, it is often difficult to acquire sufficient training data of a certain imaging modality. The same anatomical structures, however, may be visible in different modalities such as major organs on abdominal CT and MRI. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of learning from multiple modalities to improve the segmentation accuracy on each individual modality. We study the feasibility of using a dual-stream encoder-decoder architecture to learn modality-independent, and thus, generalisable and robust features. All of our MRI and CT data are unpaired, which means they are obtained from different subjects and not registered to each other. Experiments show that multi-modal learning can improve overall accuracy over modality-specific training. Results demonstrate that information across modalities can in particular improve performance on varying structures such as the spleen.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Valindria et al. (2018) results showed that the baseline was at par with or in some cases outperformed most variants, the only exception being the fourth variant, which consistently outperformed the baseline and other dual stream variants.
“Their results showed that the baseline was actually at par with or in some cases outperformed most variants, the only exception being the fourth variant, which consistently outperformed the baseline and other dual stream variants.”
From Embracing imperfect datasets: A review of deep learning solutions for medical image segmentation (2020) · cites this paper as Valindria et al. (2018)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 146
- Authors
- Valindria, V. V., Pawlowski, N., Rajchl, M., Lavdas, I., Aboagye, E. O., Rockall, A. G., Rueckert, D., & Glocker, B.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-03
- Pages
- 547-556
- ISSN
- 2472-6737 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2802798675
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (publishedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Microsoft Research
- Nvidia
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- Imperial College London
- Medical Research Council
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- multimodal learning, multi-organ segmentation, CT/MRI, spleen segmentation, medical image segmentation
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