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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Cited by
Youssif, A. A.-H. A.-R., Ghalwash, A. Z., & Ghoneim, A. A. S. A.-R. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2007.900326 · Cited by 441
Kwon, Y., Won, J.-H., Kim, B. J., & Paik, M. C. (2020) · Computational Statistics & Data Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.csda.2019.106816 · Cited by 424
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.