Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 790

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative study of retinal vessel segmentation methods on a new publicly available database

Niemeijer, Meindert, Staal, Joes, van Ginneken, Bram, Loog, Marco, Abramoff, Michael D.·2004·SPIE Proceedings

Abstract

In this work we compare the performance of a number of vessel segmentation algorithms on a newly constructed retinal vessel image database. Retinal vessel segmentation is important for the detection of numerous eye diseases and plays an important role in automatic retinal disease screening systems. A large number of methods for retinal vessel segmentation have been published, yet an evaluation of these methods on a common database of screening images has not been performed. To compare the performance of retinal vessel segmentation methods we have constructed a large database of retinal images. The database contains forty images in which the vessel trees have been manually segmented. For twenty of those forty images a second independent manual segmentation is available. This allows for a comparison between the performance of automatic methods and the performance of a human observer. The database is available to the research community. Interested researchers are encouraged to upload their segmentation results to our website (http://www.isi.uu.nl/Research/Databases). The performance of five different algorithms has been compared. Four of these methods have been implemented as described in the literature. The fifth pixel classification based method was developed specifically for the segmentation of retinal vessels and is the only supervised method in this test. We define the segmentation accuracy with respect to our gold standard as the performance measure. Results show that the pixel classification method performs best, but the second observer still performs significantly better.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1117/12.535349

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 790

Metadata

Authors
Niemeijer, M., Staal, J., van Ginneken, B., Loog, M., & Abramoff, M. D.
Venue
SPIE Proceedings
Publisher
SPIE
Published
2004-05-12
Volume
5370
Pages
648
ISSN
0277-786X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018593404
Cited by
790
References
1
FWCI
40.98
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative study of retinal vessel segmentation methods on a new publicly available database. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1117/12.535349
The paper
Niemeijer, M., Staal, J., van Ginneken, B., Loog, M., & Abramoff, M. D. (2004). Comparative study of retinal vessel segmentation methods on a new publicly available database. SPIE Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.535349

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.