PreprintCited by 111Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsMedical Imaging and Analysis

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Hierarchical 3D fully convolutional networks for multi-organ segmentation

Open access

Abstract

Recent advances in 3D fully convolutional networks (FCN) have made it feasible to produce dense voxel-wise predictions of full volumetric images. In this work, we show that a multi-class 3D FCN trained on manually labeled CT scans of seven abdominal structures (artery, vein, liver, spleen, stomach, gallbladder, and pancreas) can achieve competitive segmentation results, while avoiding the need for handcrafting features or training organ-specific models. To this end, we propose a two-stage, coarse-to-fine approach that trains an FCN model to roughly delineate the organs of interest in the first stage (seeing $\sim$40% of the voxels within a simple, automatically generated binary mask of the patient's body). We then use these predictions of the first-stage FCN to define a candidate region that will be used to train a second FCN. This step reduces the number of voxels the FCN has to classify to $\sim$10% while maintaining a recall high of $>$99%. This second-stage FCN can now focus on more detailed segmentation of the organs. We respectively utilize training and validation sets consisting of 281 and 50 clinical CT images. Our hierarchical approach provides an improved Dice score of 7.5 percentage points per organ on average in our validation set. We furthermore test our models on a completely unseen data collection acquired at a different hospital that includes 150 CT scans with three anatomical labels (liver, spleen, and pancreas). In such challenging organs as the pancreas, our hierarchical approach improves the mean Dice score from 68.5 to 82.2%, achieving the highest reported average score on this dataset.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1704.06382

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • UNETR has the second lowest averaged inference time after nnUNet and is significantly faster than transformer-based models such as SETR, TransUNet, and CoTr.

    “UNETRhasthe second lowest averaged inference time after nnUNet[21]andissignificantly faster than transformer-based models such as SETR [52], TransUNet [7] and CoTr [47].”

    From UNETR: Transformers for 3D Medical Image Segmentation (2022) · cites this paper as [7]

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 12 · Cited by 111

Metadata

Authors
Roth, H. R., Oda, H., Hayashi, Y., Oda, M., Shimizu, N., Fujiwara, M., Misawa, K., & Mori, K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2608631154
Cited by
111
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
multi-organ segmentation, hierarchical segmentation, coarse-to-fine segmentation, abdominal CT, liver segmentation, spleen segmentation, pancreas segmentation, 3D medical image segmentation, generalization to unseen data

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