Cited by 146Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Multi-modal learning from unpaired images: application to multi-organ segmentation in CT and MRI

Valindria, Vanya V., Pawlowski, Nick, Rajchl, Martin, Lavdas, Ioannis, Aboagye, Eric O., Rockall, Andrea G., Rueckert, Daniel, Glocker, Ben·2018·2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)

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

Crossref · 10.1109/wacv.2018.00066

Cites

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?

  • 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.”

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)
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