CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 61Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAI in cancer detection

A systematic collection of medical image datasets for deep learning

Open access
Li, Johann, Zhu, Guangming, Hua, Cong, Feng, Mingtao, BasheerBennamoun, Li, Ping, Lu, Xiaoyuan, Song, Juan +6 more·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2106.12864arXiv 2106.12864
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The astounding success made by artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and other fields proves that AI can achieve human-like performance. However, success always comes with challenges. Deep learning algorithms are data-dependent and require large datasets for training. The lack of data in the medical imaging field creates a bottleneck for the application of deep learning to medical image analysis. Medical image acquisition, annotation, and analysis are costly, and their usage is constrained by ethical restrictions. They also require many resources, such as human expertise and funding. That makes it difficult for non-medical researchers to have access to useful and large medical data. Thus, as comprehensive as possible, this paper provides a collection of medical image datasets with their associated challenges for deep learning research. We have collected information of around three hundred datasets and challenges mainly reported between 2013 and 2020 and categorized them into four categories: head & neck, chest & abdomen, pathology & blood, and ``others''. Our paper has three purposes: 1) to provide a most up to date and complete list that can be used as a universal reference to easily find the datasets for clinical image analysis, 2) to guide researchers on the methodology to test and evaluate their methods' performance and robustness on relevant datasets, 3) to provide a ``route'' to relevant algorithms for the relevant medical topics, and challenge leaderboards.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2106.12864

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Accessing medical data is not allowed for most researchers since clinical data contain private information and only researchers with authorization could utilize the dataset.

    “Finally, accessing medical data is not allowed for most researchers since the clinical data contain private information and only researchers with authorization could utilize the dataset (25).”

    From A review of deep learning-based deformable medical image registration (2022) · cites this paper as [25]

    Section 6.1 says most non-medical researchers lack authorization to access clinical data and explains that privacy and ethical restrictions limit access. The citing sentence broadens this to most researchers generally, which the passage does not establish. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 229

  1. 2002. Computed Tomography. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 15, 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471221155.ch15 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471221155.ch15 · DOI
  2. 2002. Instrumentation for Nuclear Imaging. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 12, 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471221155.ch12 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471221155.ch12 · DOI
  3. 2002. Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopy. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 24, 367-388. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471221155.ch24 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471221155.ch24 · DOI
  4. 2002. Ultrasound Waves. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 19, 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471221155.ch19 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471221155.ch19 · DOI
  5. 2014. Introductory Signal Acquisition Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 8, 113-139. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118633953.ch8 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118633953.ch8 · DOI
  6. 2014. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 1, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118633953.ch1 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118633953.ch1 · DOI
  7. 2014. Random Walks, Relaxation, and Diffusion. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 21, 619-636. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118633953.ch21 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118633953.ch21 · DOI
  8. 2014. Spin Density, T1, and T2 Quantification Methods in MR Imaging. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chapter 22, 637-667. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118633953.ch22 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118633953.ch22 · DOI
  9. 2020. 2020 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimer's and Dementia 16, 3 (mar 2020), 391-460. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12068 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 2020. Diabetic Retinopathy Detection. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology 9, 4 (2020), 1022-1026. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.d7786.049420 · DOI
  11. H. J. Aerts et al. 2014. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nature Communications 5, 1 (sep 2014), 4006. https: //doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5006 · DOI · Paper page
  12. R. R. Agravat and M. S. Raval. 2021. A Survey and Analysis on Automated Glioma Brain Tumor Segmentation and Overall Patient Survival Prediction. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 28, 5 (aug 2021), 4117-4152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-021-09559-w arXiv:2101.10599 · DOI
  13. P. S. Aisen et al. 2015. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 Clinical Core: Progress and plans. Alzheimer's and Dementia 11, 7 (jul 2015), 734-739. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jalz.2015.05.005 · DOI
  14. Z. Akkus et al. 2017. Predicting Deletion of Chromosomal Arms 1p/19q in Low-Grade Gliomas from MR Images Using Machine Intelligence. Journal of Digital Imaging 30, 4 (aug 2017), 469-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-9984-3 · DOI
  15. W. Al-Dhabyani et al. 2020. Dataset of breast ultrasound images. Data in Brief 28 (2020), 104863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104863 · DOI · Paper page
  16. H. Al Hajj et al. 2019. CATARACTS: Challenge on automatic tool annotation for cataRACT surgery. Medical Image Analysis 52 (feb 2019), 24-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media. 2018.11.008 · DOI
  17. S. Ali et al. 2021. Deep learning for detection and segmentation of artefact and disease instances in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Medical Image Analysis 70 (2021). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102002 arXiv:2010.06034 · DOI
  18. S. Ali et al. 2019. Endoscopy artifact detection (EAD 2019) challenge dataset. arXiv (may 2019). https://doi.org/10.17632/C7FJBXCGJ9.1 arXiv:1905.03209 · DOI
  19. I. Alkhasli et al. 2019. Modulation of fronto-striatal functional connectivity using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 13 (jun 2019). https: //doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00190 · DOI · Paper page
  20. G. Aresta et al. 2019. BACH: Grand challenge on breast cancer histology images. Medical Image Analysis 56 (aug 2019), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2019.05.010 arXiv:1808.04277 · DOI
  21. S. G. Armato et al. 2016. LUNGx Challenge for computerized lung nodule classification. Journal of Medical Imaging 3, 4 (dec 2016), 044506. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.3.4.044506 · DOI
  22. S. G. Armato et al. 2015. Guest Editorial: LUNGx Challenge for computerized lung nodule classification: reflections and lessons learned. Journal of Medical Imaging 2, 2 (jun 2015), 020103. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.2.2.020103 · DOI
  23. S. G. Armato et al. 2011. The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI): A completed reference database of lung nodules on CT scans. Medical Physics 38, 2 (jan 2011), 915-931. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3528204 · DOI · Paper page
  24. H. B. Arunachalam et al. 2017. Computer aided image segmentation and classification for viable and non-viable tumor identification in osteosarcoma. In Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, Vol. 0. 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813207813_0020 · DOI
  25. J. B. Bae et al. 2020. Identification of Alzheimer's disease using a convolutional neural network model based on T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Scientific Reports 10, 1 (dec 2020), 22252. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79243-9 · DOI
  26. S. Bakas et al. 2018. Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS challenge. arXiv (nov 2018). arXiv:1811.02629 http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02629 · arXiv
  27. S. Balocco et al. 2014. Standardized evaluation methodology and reference database for evaluating IVUS image segmentation. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 38, 2 (mar 2014), 70-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2013.07.001 · DOI
  28. V. S. Bawa et al. 2020. ESAD: Endoscopic surgeon action detection dataset. arXiv (jun 2020). arXiv:2006.07164 http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07164 · arXiv
  29. B. E. Bejnordi et al. 2017. Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancer. JAMA -Journal of the American Medical Association 318, 22 (dec 2017), 2199-2210. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.14585 · DOI · Paper page
  30. E. Bercovich and M. C. Javitt. 2018. Medical Imaging: From Roentgen to the Digital Revolution, and Beyond. Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal 9, 4 (Oct. 2018), e0034. https://doi.org/10.5041/rmmj.10355 · DOI
  31. O. Bernard et al. 2016. Standardized Evaluation System for Left Ventricular Segmentation Algorithms in 3D Echocardiography. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 35, 4 (apr 2016), 967-977. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2015.2503890 · DOI · Paper page
  32. O. Bernard et al. 2018. Deep Learning Techniques for Automatic MRI Cardiac Multi-Structures Segmentation and Diagnosis: Is the Problem Solved? IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 37, 11 (nov 2018), 2514-2525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2018.2837502 · DOI · Paper page
  33. D. Bhatt et al. 2021. CNN Variants for Computer Vision: History, Architecture, Application, Challenges and Future Scope. Electronics 10, 20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/ electronics10202470 · DOI · Paper page
  34. P. Bilic1a et al. 2019. The liver tumor segmentation benchmark (LiTS). arXiv abs/1901.0 (2019). arXiv:1901.04056 http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.04056 · arXiv
  35. B. N. Bloch et al. 2015. Data From BREAST-DIAGNOSIS. https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2015.SDNRQXXR · DOI
  36. B. N. Bloch et al. 2015. Data From PROSTATE-DIAGNOSIS. https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2015.FOQEUJVT · DOI
  37. N. Bloch. 2015. Nc-isbi 2013 challenge: automated segmentation of prostate structures. https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2015.ZF0VLOPV · DOI
  38. H. Bogunovic et al. 2019. RETOUCH: The Retinal OCT Fluid Detection and Segmentation Benchmark and Challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 38, 8 (aug 2019), 1858-1874. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2019.2901398 · DOI
  39. D. Bontempi et al. 2020. CEREBRUM: a fast and fully-volumetric Convolutional Encoder-decodeR for weakly-supervised sEgmentation of BRain strUctures from out-of-the-scanner MRI. Medical Image Analysis 62 (sep 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2020.101688 arXiv:1909.05085 · DOI
  40. P. Boord et al. 2017. Executive attention networks show altered relationship with default mode network in PD. NeuroImage: Clinical 13 (2017), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl. 2016.11.004 · DOI
  41. J. Born et al. 2020. POCOVID-net: Automatic detection of COVID-19 from a new lung ultrasound imaging dataset (POCUS). arXiv (apr 2020). arXiv:2004.12084 http: //arxiv.org/abs/2004.12084 · arXiv
  42. J. Born et al. 2020. Accelerating COVID-19 differential diagnosis with explainable ultrasound image analysis. arXiv (sep 2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app11020672 arXiv:2009.06116 · DOI
  43. J. Borovec et al. 2020. ANHIR: Automatic Non-Rigid Histological Image Registration Challenge. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 39, 10 (2020), 3042-3052. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2020.2986331 · DOI
  44. M. Boulanger et al. 2021. Deep learning methods to generate synthetic CT from MRI in radiotherapy: A literature review. Physica Medica 89 (sep 2021), 265-281. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.07.027 · DOI
  45. E. E. Bron et al. 2015. Standardized evaluation of algorithms for computer-aided diagnosis of dementia based on structural MRI: The CADDementia challenge. NeuroImage 111 (may 2015), 562-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.048 · DOI · Paper page
  46. M. Buda et al. 2020. Detection of masses and architectural distortions in digital breast tomosynthesis: a publicly available dataset of 5,060 patients and a deep learning model. (2020). arXiv:2011.07995 http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07995 · arXiv
  47. G. Campanella et al. 2019. Clinical-grade computational pathology using weakly supervised deep learning on whole slide images. Nature Medicine 25, 8 (2019), 1301-1309. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0508-1 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Campello and M. Víctor. 2020. Multi-Centre, Multi-Vendor and Multi-Disease Cardiac Segmentation: The M&Ms Challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2020).
  49. A. Carass et al. 2017. Longitudinal multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation: Resource and challenge. NeuroImage 148 (mar 2017), 77-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016. 12.064 · DOI
  50. C. E. Cardenas et al. 2019. Data from AAPM RT-MAC Grand Challenge 2019. https://doi.org/10.7937/tcia.2019.bcfjqfqb · DOI
  51. J. D. Carlin and N. Kriegeskorte. 2017. Adjudicating between face-coding models with individual-face fMRI responses. PLoS Computational Biology 13, 7 (jul 2017), e1005604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005604 · DOI
  52. J. Carse and S. McKenna. 2019. Active Learning for Patch-Based Digital Pathology Using Convolutional Neural Networks to Reduce Annotation Costs. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Vol. 11435 LNCS. 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23937-4_3 · DOI
  53. N. Chang et al. 2018. BOLD5000 A public fMRI dataset of 5000 images. arXiv 6, 1 (sep 2018), 49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0052-3 arXiv:1809.01281 · DOI
  54. S. J. Chiu et al. 2015. Kernel regression based segmentation of optical coherence tomography images with diabetic macular edema. Biomedical Optics Express 6, 4 (apr 2015), 1172. https://doi.org/10.1364/boe.6.001172 · DOI · Paper page
  55. M. E. Chowdhury et al. 2020. Can AI Help in Screening Viral and COVID-19 Pneumonia? IEEE Access 8 (2020), 132665-132676. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3010287 arXiv:2003.13145 · DOI · Paper page
  56. K. Clark et al. 2013. The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): Maintaining and operating a public information repository. Journal of Digital Imaging 26, 6 (dec 2013), 1045-1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7 · DOI · Paper page
  57. O. Commowick et al. 2018. Objective Evaluation of Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Segmentation using a Data Management and Processing Infrastructure. Scientific Reports 8, 1 (dec 2018), 13650. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31911-7 · DOI
  58. C. Couinaud. 1999. Liver anatomy: Portal (and suprahepatic) or biliary segmentation. Digestive Surgery 16, 6 (1999), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1159/000018770 · DOI
  59. A. Demircioglu et al. 2021. Detecting the pulmonary trunk in CT scout views using deep learning. Scientific Reports 11, 1 (dec 2021), 10215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021- 89647-w · DOI
  60. J. Deng et al. 2010. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 248-255. https: //doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · DOI · Paper page
  61. S. Desai et al. 2020. Chest imaging representing a COVID-19 positive rural U.S. population. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00741-6 · DOI
  62. R. S. Desikan et al. 2006. An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. NeuroImage 31, 3 (jul 2006), 968-980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.021 · DOI · Paper page
  63. R. Duggal et al. 2017. SD-Layer: Stain deconvolutional layer for CNNs in medical microscopic imaging. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 10435 LNCS (2017), 435-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66179-7_50 · DOI · Paper page
  64. R. Duggal et al. 2016. Overlapping cell nuclei segmentation in microscopic images using deep belief networks. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3009977.3010043 · DOI · Paper page
  65. J. Egger et al. 2022. Medical deep learning-A systematic meta-review. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 221 (2022), 106874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2022. 106874 · DOI
  66. M. Everingham et al. 2010. The pascal visual object classes (VOC) challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision 88, 2 (jun 2010), 303-338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263- 009-0275-4 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Z. Fan et al. 2021. U-net based analysis of MRI for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. Neural Computing and Applications (apr 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-05983-y · DOI
  68. S. H. Faro and F. B. Mohamed. 2010. BOLD fMRI: A guide to functional imaging for neuroscientists. Springer New York, New York, NY. 1-291 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4419-1329-6 · DOI
  69. E. Flouty et al. 2019. CaDIS: Cataract dataset for image segmentation. arXiv (jun 2019). arXiv:1906.11586 http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.11586 · arXiv
  70. H. Fu et al. 2020. ADAM: Automatic Detection challenge on Age-related Macular degeneration. https://doi.org/10.21227/dt4f-rt59 · DOI
  71. H. Fu et al. 2020. AGE Challenge: Angle Closure Glaucoma Evaluation in Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography. arXiv (2020). arXiv:2005.02258 http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2005.02258 · arXiv
  72. D. Ganguly et al. 2010. Medical Imaging: A Review. In Security-Enriched Urban Computing and Smart Grid, Tai-hoon Kim, Adrian Stoica, and Ruay-Shiung Chang (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 504-516.
  73. M. A. Gavrielides et al. 2010. A resource for the assessment of lung nodule size estimation methods: database of thoracic CT scans of an anthropomorphic phantom. Optics Express 18, 14 (jul 2010), 15244. https://doi.org/10.1364/oe.18.015244 · DOI
  74. S. Gehlot et al. 2020. SDCT-AuxNetθ : DCT augmented stain deconvolutional CNN with auxiliary classifier for cancer diagnosis. Medical Image Analysis 61 (apr 2020), 101661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2020.101661 arXiv:2006.00304 · DOI
  75. O. Gevaert et al. 2012. Non-small cell lung cancer: Identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data -Methods and preliminary results. Radiology 264, 2 (aug 2012), 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111607 · DOI
  76. A. L. Goldberger et al. 2000. PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals. Circulation 101, 23 (jun 2000). https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.101.23.e215 · DOI · Paper page
  77. C. Gsaxner et al. 2019. Facial model collection for medical augmented reality in oncologic cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Scientific Data 6, 1 (09 Dec 2019), 310. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0327-8 · DOI
  78. Guohua Shen et al. 2020. Deep Image Reconstruction. https://doi.org/10.18112/OPENNEURO.DS001506.V1.3.1 · DOI
  79. A. Gupta et al. 2018. PCSEG: Color model driven probabilistic multiphase level set based tool for plasma cell segmentation in multiple myeloma. PLoS ONE 13, 12 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207908 · DOI
  80. K. Hameeteman et al. 2011. Evaluation framework for carotid bifurcation lumen segmentation and stenosis grading. Medical Image Analysis 15, 4 (aug 2011), 477-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2011.02.004 · DOI
  81. S. A. Harmon et al. 2020. Artificial intelligence for the detection of COVID-19 pneumonia on chest CT using multinational datasets. Nature Communications 11, 1 (dec 2020), 4080. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17971-2 · DOI · Paper page
  82. K. He et al. 2020. Mask R-CNN. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 42, 2 (2020), 386-397. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2844175 arXiv:1703.06870 · DOI · Paper page
  83. X. He et al. 2020. PATHVQA: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering. arXiv (mar 2020). arXiv:2003.10286 http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.10286 · arXiv
  84. T. Heimann et al. 2009. Comparison and evaluation of methods for liver segmentation from CT datasets. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 28, 8 (2009), 1251-1265. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2009.2013851 · DOI · Paper page
  85. N. Heller et al. 2019. The KiTS19 challenge data: 300 Kidney tumor cases with clinical context, Ct semantic segmentations, and surgical outcomes. arXiv (2019). arXiv:1904.00445 http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.00445 · arXiv
  86. T. Horikawa and Y. Kamitani. 2017. Generic decoding of seen and imagined objects using hierarchical visual features. Nature Communications 8, 1 (aug 2017), 15037. https: //doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15037 arXiv:1510.06479 · DOI
  87. T. M. Hospedales et al. 2021. Meta-Learning in Neural Networks: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI. 2021.3079209 arXiv:2004.05439 · DOI · Paper page
  88. A. G. Howard et al. 2017. MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applications. (apr 2017). arXiv:1704.04861 http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04861 · arXiv
  89. M. D. Hssayeni et al. 2020. Intracranial hemorrhage segmentation using a deep convolutional model. Data 5, 1 (feb 2020), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/data5010014 arXiv:1910.08643 · DOI
  90. G. Huang et al. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings -30th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Vol. 2017-Janua. 2261-2269. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.243 arXiv:1608.06993 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Y. Ikutani et al. 2020. Expert programmers have fine-tuned cortical representations of source code. bioRxiv (2020), 2020.01.28.923953. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.28.923953 · DOI
  92. J. Irvin et al. 2019. CheXpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty labels and expert comparison. 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, 31st Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019 and the 9th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019 33 (jan 2019), 590-597. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301590 arXiv:1901.07031 · DOI · Paper page
  93. I. Išgum et al. 2015. Evaluation of automatic neonatal brain segmentation algorithms: The NeoBrainS12 challenge. Medical Image Analysis 20, 1 (feb 2015), 135-151. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2014.11.001 · DOI
  94. O. Jimenez-Del-Toro et al. 2016. Cloud-Based Evaluation of Anatomical Structure Segmentation and Landmark Detection Algorithms: VISCERAL Anatomy Benchmarks. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 35, 11 (nov 2016), 2459-2475. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2016.2578680 · DOI
  95. Y. Jin et al. 2021. Deep learning and particle filter-based aortic dissection vessel tree segmentation. In Medical Imaging 2021: Biomedical Applications in Molecular, Structural, and Functional Imaging, Barjor S. Gimi and Andrzej Krol (Eds.), Vol. 11600. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 116001W. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2588220 · DOI
  96. A. E. W. Johnson et al. 2019. The MIMIC-CXR Database. https://doi.org/10.13026/C2JT1Q · DOI · Paper page
  97. C. D. Johnson et al. 2008. Accuracy of CT Colonography for Detection of Large Adenomas and Cancers. New England Journal of Medicine 359, 12 (sep 2008), 1207-1217. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0800996 · DOI
  98. R. Karim et al. 2018. Algorithms for left atrial wall segmentation and thickness -Evaluation on an open-source CT and MRI image database. Medical Image Analysis 50 (dec 2018), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2018.08.004 · DOI
  99. D. Karimi et al. 2021. Transfer learning in medical image segmentation: New insights from analysis of the dynamics of model parameters and learned representations. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 116 (2021), 102078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2021.102078 · DOI
  100. A. E. Kavur et al. 2021. CHAOS Challenge -combined (CT-MR) healthy abdominal organ segmentation. Medical Image Analysis 69 (jan 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2020. 101950 arXiv:2001.06535 · DOI
  101. D. S. Kermany et al. 2018. Identifying Medical Diagnoses and Treatable Diseases by Image-Based Deep Learning. Cell 172, 5 (feb 2018), 1122-1131.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell. 2018.02.010 · DOI · Paper page
  102. B. Khagi et al. 2019. Alzheimer's disease Classification from Brain MRI based on transfer learning from CNN. In BMEiCON 2018 -11th Biomedical Engineering International Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/BMEiCON.2018.8609974 · DOI
  103. S. Khan et al. 2018. A Guide to Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer Vision. Synthesis Lectures on Computer Vision 8, 1 (feb 2018), 1-207. https://doi.org/10.2200/ s00822ed1v01y201712cov015 · DOI
  104. H. E. Kim et al. 2022. Transfer learning for medical image classification: a literature review. BMC Medical Imaging 22, 1 (13 Apr 2022), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-022-00793-7 · DOI
  105. J. K. Kim et al. 2021. Prediction of ambulatory outcome in patients with corona radiata infarction using deep learning. Scientific Reports 11, 1 (dec 2021), 7989. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87176-0 · DOI
  106. Y. Kim et al. 2020. Validation of deep learning natural language processing algorithm for keyword extraction from pathology reports in electronic health records. Scientific Reports 10, 1 (dec 2020), 20265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77258-w · DOI
  107. H. A. Kirişli et al. 2013. Standardized evaluation framework for evaluating coronary artery stenosis detection, stenosis quantification and lumen segmentation algorithms in computed tomography angiography. Medical Image Analysis 17, 8 (dec 2013), 859-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2013.05.007 · DOI
  108. A. Klein and J. Tourville. 2012. 101 Labeled Brain Images and a Consistent Human Cortical Labeling Protocol. Frontiers in Neuroscience 6, DEC (2012). https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnins.2012.00171 · DOI
  109. O. Kodym et al. 2021. SkullBreak / SkullFix -Dataset for automatic cranial implant design and a benchmark for volumetric shape learning tasks. Data in Brief 35 (2021), 106902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.106902 · DOI
  110. L. Koenders et al. 2016. Grey matter changes associated with heavy cannabis use: A longitudinal sMRI study. PLoS ONE 11, 5 (may 2016), e0152482. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0152482 · DOI
  111. L. Kostakoglu et al. 2015. A phase II study of 3'-Deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET in the assessment of early response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Results from ACRIN 6688. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 56, 11 (nov 2015), 1681-1689. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.160663 · DOI
  112. H. J. Kuijf et al. 2019. Standardized Assessment of Automatic Segmentation of White Matter Hyperintensities and Results of the WMH Segmentation Challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 38, 11 (nov 2019), 2556-2568. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2019.2905770 arXiv:1904.00682 · DOI
  113. N. Kumar et al. 2020. A Multi-Organ Nucleus Segmentation Challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 39, 5 (may 2020), 1380-1391. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2019. 2947628 · DOI
  114. M. Laal. 2013. Innovation Process in Medical Imaging. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013), 60-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.388 World Congress on Administrative and Political Sciences. · DOI
  115. S. Leclerc et al. 2019. Deep Learning for Segmentation Using an Open Large-Scale Dataset in 2D Echocardiography. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38, 9 (sep 2019), 2198-2210. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2019.2900516 arXiv:1908.06948 · DOI
  116. Y. LeCun et al. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86, 11 (1998), 2278-2323. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.726791 · DOI · Paper page
  117. R. J. Lepping et al. 2016. Neural processing of emotional musical and nonmusical stimuli in depression. PLoS ONE 11, 6 (jun 2016), e0156859. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0156859 · DOI
  118. J. Li et al. 2021. Synthetic skull bone defects for automatic patient-specific craniofacial implant design. Scientific Data 8, 1 (29 Jan 2021), 36. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021- 00806-0 · DOI
  119. J. Li et al. 2020. A Baseline Approach for AutoImplant: The MICCAI 2020 Cranial Implant Design Challenge. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 12445 LNCS (jun 2020), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60946-7_8 arXiv:2006.12449 · DOI
  120. J. Li et al. 2019. Signet Ring Cell Detection with a Semi-supervised Learning Framework. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 11492 LNCS (jul 2019), 842-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20351-1_66 arXiv:1907.03954 · DOI
  121. P. Li et al. 2021. A Dataset of Pulmonary Lesions With Multiple-Level Attributes and Fine Contours. Frontiers in Digital Health 2 (feb 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2020.609349 · DOI
  122. Z. Li et al. 2018. Title: Computer-aided diagnosis of lung carcinoma using deep learning -a pilot study. arXiv (mar 2018). arXiv:1803.05471 http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05471 · arXiv
  123. D. Li, P., Wang, S., Li, T., Lu, J., HuangFu, Y., & Wang. 2020. A Large-Scale CT and PET/CT Dataset for Lung Cancer Diagnosis [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.7937/TCIA.2020.NNC2- 0461 · DOI
  124. H. Liang et al. 2019. Evaluation and accurate diagnoses of pediatric diseases using artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine 25, 3 (mar 2019), 433-438. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591- 018-0335-9 · DOI
  125. S. L. Liew et al. 2017. A large, open source dataset of stroke anatomical brain images and manual lesion segmentations. bioRxiv (2017). https://doi.org/10.1101/179614 · DOI · Paper page
  126. T. Y. Lin et al. 2014. Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 8693 LNCS, PART 5 (may 2014), 740-755. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10602-1_48 arXiv:1405.0312 · DOI · Paper page
  127. G. Litjens et al. 2018. 1399 H&E-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: The CAMELYON dataset. GigaScience 7, 6 (jun 2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/ gigascience/giy065 · DOI
  128. G. Litjens et al. 2014. Computer-aided detection of prostate cancer in MRI. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 33, 5 (may 2014), 1083-1092. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2014. 2303821 · DOI
  129. G. Litjens et al. 2014. Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for MRI: The PROMISE12 challenge. Medical Image Analysis (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2013.12.002 · DOI · Paper page
  130. J. H. H. Litjens Geert; Futterer. 2015. Data From Prostate-3T. https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2015.QJTV5IL5 · DOI
  131. N. Liu et al. 2019. Learning the Dynamic Treatment Regimes from Medical Registry Data through Deep Q-network. Scientific Reports 9, 1 (dec 2019), 1495. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-018-37142-0 · DOI
  132. P. Lo et al. 2012. Extraction of airways from CT (EXACT'09). IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 31, 11 (2012), 2093-2107. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2012.2209674 · DOI
  133. J. Long et al. 2015. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vol. 07-12-June. IEEE, 431-440. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298965 · DOI · Paper page
  134. T. M. Madhyastha et al. 2015. Dynamic connectivity at rest predicts attention task performance. Brain Connectivity 5, 1 (feb 2015), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2014.0248 · DOI
  135. G. Maguolo and L. Nanni. 2020. A Critic Evaluation of Methods for COVID-19 Automatic Detection from X-Ray Images. arXiv (apr 2020). arXiv:2004.12823 http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2004.12823 · arXiv
  136. O. Maier et al. 2017. ISLES 2015 -A public evaluation benchmark for ischemic stroke lesion segmentation from multispectral MRI. Medical Image Analysis 35 (jan 2017), 250-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.07.009 · DOI
  137. C. P. Mao et al. 2020. Altered resting-state functional connectivity and effective connectivity of the habenula in irritable bowel syndrome: A cross-sectional and machine learning study. Human Brain Mapping 41, 13 (sep 2020), 3655-3666. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25038 · DOI
  138. D. S. Marcus et al. 2010. Open access series of imaging studies: Longitudinal MRI data in nondemented and demented older adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22, 12 (dec 2010), 2677-2684. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21407 · DOI
  139. D. S. Marcus et al. 2007. Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS): Cross-sectional MRI data in young, middle aged, nondemented, and demented older adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19, 9 (sep 2007), 1498-1507. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1498 · DOI · Paper page
  140. R. V. Marinescu et al. 2020. The Alzheimer's disease prediction of longitudinal evolution (tadpole) challenge: Results after 1 year follow-up. arXiv (feb 2020). arXiv:2002.03419 http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.03419 · arXiv
  141. M. Mascalchi et al. 2018. Histogram analysis of dti-derived indices reveals pontocerebellar degeneration and its progression in SCA2. PLoS ONE 13, 7 (jul 2018), e0200258. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200258 · DOI
  142. C. Matek et al. 2019. Human-level recognition of blast cells in acute myeloid leukaemia with convolutional neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence 1, 11 (nov 2019), 538-544. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0101-9 · DOI
  143. M. Mehdizadeh et al. 2021. Deep feature loss to denoise OCT images using deep neural networks. Journal of Biomedical Optics 26, 04 (apr 2021). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jbo.26.4. 046003 · DOI
  144. A. M. Mendrik et al. 2015. MRBrainS Challenge: Online Evaluation Framework for Brain Image Segmentation in 3T MRI Scans. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2015 (2015), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/813696 · DOI · Paper page
  145. B. H. Menze et al. 2015. The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 34, 10 (oct 2015), 1993-2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694 · DOI · Paper page
  146. R. Mishra et al. 2017. Histopathological diagnosis for viable and non-viable tumor prediction for osteosarcoma using convolutional neural network. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 10330 LNBI. 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59575-7_2 · DOI
  147. R. Mishra et al. 2018. Convolutional neural network for histopathological analysis of osteosarcoma. In Journal of Computational Biology, Vol. 25. 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1089/ cmb.2017.0153 · DOI
  148. Y. Miyawaki et al. 2008. Visual Image Reconstruction from Human Brain Activity using a Combination of Multiscale Local Image Decoders. Neuron 60, 5 (dec 2008), 915-929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.004 · DOI · Paper page
  149. A. K. Mondal et al. 2018. Few-shot 3D multi-modal medical image segmentation using generative adversarial learning. arXiv (oct 2018). arXiv:1810.12241 http://arxiv.org/abs/1810. 12241 · arXiv
  150. S. G. Mueller et al. 2005. The Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America 15, 4 (2005), 869-877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2005.09.008 · DOI · Paper page
  151. D. Newitt and N. Hylton. 2016. Single site breast DCE-MRI data and segmentations from patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. , The Cancer Imaging Archive pages. https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2016.QHsyhJKy · DOI
  152. M. Niemeijer et al. 2010. Retinopathy online challenge: Automatic detection of microaneurysms in digital color fundus photographs. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 29, 1 (2010), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2009.2033909 · DOI
  153. J. I. Orlando et al. 2020. REFUGE Challenge: A unified framework for evaluating automated methods for glaucoma assessment from fundus photographs. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. media.2019.101570 arXiv:1910.03667 · DOI
  154. L. P. et al. 2017. American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) Palais des congrés de Montréal Montréal, Canada April 26-29, 2017. Pediatric blood & cancer 64 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.26591 · DOI
  155. D. F. Pace et al. 2015. Interactive whole-heart segmentation in congenital heart disease. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 9351. 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_10 · DOI
  156. Y. Pan et al. 2019. Neighborhood-Correction Algorithm for Cells. Springer Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0798-4 · DOI
  157. S. Pandya et al. 2021. A Study of the Recent Trends of Immunology: Key Challenges, Domains, Applications, Datasets, and Future Directions. Sensors 21, 23 (2021). https: //doi.org/10.3390/s21237786 · DOI
  158. C. Patel et al. 2022. DBGC: Dimension-Based Generic Convolution Block for Object Recognition. Sensors 22, 5 (24 Feb. 2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/s22051780 Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Publisher Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.. · DOI
  159. C. I. Patel et al. 2018. Human action recognition using fusion of features for unconstrained video sequences. Computers & Electrical Engineering 70 (2018), 284-301. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2016.06.004 · DOI
  160. C. I. Patel et al. 2020. Histogram of Oriented Gradient-Based Fusion of Features for Human Action Recognition in Action Video Sequences. Sensors 20, 24 (2020). https: //doi.org/10.3390/s20247299 · DOI
  161. M. Peikari et al. 2017. Automatic cellularity assessment from post-treated breast surgical specimens. Cytometry Part A 91, 11 (2017), 1078-1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.23244 · DOI
  162. H. Peng et al. 2021. Predicting Isocitrate Dehydrogenase (IDH) Mutation Status in Gliomas Using Multiparameter MRI Radiomics Features. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 53, 5 (may 2021), 1399-1407. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27434 · DOI
  163. A. G. PODOLEANU. 2012. Optical coherence tomography. Journal of Microscopy 247, 3 (2012), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2818.2012.03619.x arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2818.2012.03619.x · DOI
  164. P. Porwal et al. 2020. IDRiD: Diabetic Retinopathy -Segmentation and Grading Challenge. Medical Image Analysis 59 (jan 2020), 101561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2019.101561 · DOI
  165. G. Quellec et al. 2020. Automatic detection of rare pathologies in fundus photographs using few-shot learning. Medical Image Analysis 61 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media. 2020.101660 arXiv:1907.09449 · DOI
  166. L. Radl et al. 2022. AVT: Multicenter aortic vessel tree CTA dataset collection with ground truth segmentation masks. Data in Brief 40 (2022), 107801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib. 2022.107801 · DOI
  167. P. F. Raudaschl et al. 2017. Evaluation of segmentation methods on head and neck CT: Auto-segmentation challenge 2015. Medical Physics 44, 5 (may 2017), 2020-2036. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12197 · DOI
  168. J. Redmon and A. Farhadi. 2018. YOLOv3: An Incremental Improvement. (apr 2018). arXiv:1804.02767 http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02767 · arXiv
  169. M. Rezaei and M. Shahidi. 2020. Zero-Shot Learning and Its Applications From Autonomous Vehicles to Covid-19 Diagnosis: A Review. arXiv (apr 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ibmed.2020.100005 arXiv:2004.14143 · DOI
  170. H. R. Roth et al. 2015. Deeporgan: Multi-level deep convolutional networks for automated pancreas segmentation. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Vol. 9349. 556-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24553-9_68 arXiv:1506.06448 · DOI · Paper page
  171. H. R. Roth et al. 2014. A new 2.5D representation for lymph node detection using random sets of deep convolutional neural network observations. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 8673 LNCS. 520-527. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10404-1_65 arXiv:1406.2639 · DOI
  172. S. Rueda et al. 2014. Evaluation and comparison of current fetal ultrasound image segmentation methods for biometric measurements: A grand challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 33, 4 (2014), 797-813. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2013.2276943 · DOI
  173. M. Rusu et al. 2017. Co-registration of pre-operative CT with ex vivo surgically excised ground glass nodules to define spatial extent of invasive adenocarcinoma on in vivo imaging: a proof-of-concept study. European Radiology 27, 10 (2017), 4209-4217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4813-0 · DOI
  174. D. Scheie et al. 2006. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on touch preparations: A reliable method for detecting loss of heterozygosity at 1p and 19q in oligodendroglial tumors. American Journal of Surgical Pathology 30, 7 (jul 2006), 828-837. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000213250.44822.2e · DOI
  175. K. Schmainda and M. Prah. 2018. Brain-Tumor-Progression. https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2018.15quzvnb · DOI
  176. A. Seff et al. 2015. Leveraging mid-level semantic boundary cues for automated lymph node detection. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24571-3_7 · DOI · Paper page
  177. A. Seff et al. 2014. 2D view aggregation for lymph node detection using a shallow hierarchy of linear classifiers. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 8673 LNCS. 544-552. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10404-1_68 arXiv:1408.3337 · DOI
  178. A. A. A. Setio et al. 2017. Validation, comparison, and combination of algorithms for automatic detection of pulmonary nodules in computed tomography images: The LUNA16 challenge. Medical Image Analysis 42 (dec 2017), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.06.015 arXiv:1612.08012 · DOI
  179. W. Shao et al. 2018. Deep active learning for nucleus classification in pathology images. In Proceedings -International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, Vol. 2018-April. IEEE, 199-202. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2018.8363554 · DOI
  180. M. J. Sheller et al. 2019. Multi-institutional deep learning modeling without sharing patient data: A feasibility study on brain tumor segmentation. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Vol. 11383 LNCS. 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11723-8_9 arXiv:1810.04304 · DOI · Paper page
  181. G. Shen et al. 2019. Deep image reconstruction from human brain activity. PLoS Computational Biology 15, 1 (jan 2019), e1006633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006633 · DOI
  182. Z. Shi et al. 2020. A clinically applicable deep-learning model for detecting intracranial aneurysm in computed tomography angiography images. Nature Communications 11, 1 (dec 2020), 6090. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19527-w · DOI
  183. D. Silver et al. 2016. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529, 7587 (jan 2016), 484-489. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16961 · DOI · Paper page
  184. K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. 2015. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015 - Conference Track Proceedings. arXiv:1409.1556 · arXiv
  185. A. L. Simpson et al. 2019. A large annotated medical image dataset for the development and evaluation of segmentation algorithms. arXiv (feb 2019). arXiv:1902.09063 http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09063 · arXiv
  186. R. Souza et al. 2018. An open, multi-vendor, multi-field-strength brain MR dataset and analysis of publicly available skull stripping methods agreement. NeuroImage 170 (apr 2018), 482-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.021 · DOI
  187. A. B. Spanier and L. Joskowicz. 2014. Rule-based ventral cavity multi-organ automatic segmentation in CT scans. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 8848. 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13972-2_15 · DOI
  188. S. Stirenko et al. 2018. Chest X-Ray Analysis of Tuberculosis by Deep Learning with Segmentation and Augmentation. In 2018 IEEE 38th International Conference on Electronics and Nanotechnology, ELNANO 2018 -Proceedings. 422-428. https://doi.org/10.1109/ELNANO.2018.8477564 · DOI
  189. Y. Sun et al. 2021. Multi-Site Infant Brain Segmentation Algorithms: The iSeg-2019 Challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2021. 3055428 · DOI
  190. Z. Swiderska-Chadaj et al. 2019. Learning to detect lymphocytes in immunohistochemistry with deep learning. Medical Image Analysis 58 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media. 2019.101547 · DOI
  191. C. Szegedy et al. 2015. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vol. 07-12-June. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298594 arXiv:1409.4842 · DOI · Paper page
  192. Z. Tang et al. 2019. Interpretable classification of Alzheimer's disease pathologies with a convolutional neural network pipeline. Nature Communications 10, 1 (dec 2019), 2173. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10212-1 · DOI
  193. E. Tartaglione et al. 2020. Unveiling COVID-19 from chest x-ray with deep learning: A hurdles race with small data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 18 (apr 2020), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186933 arXiv:2004.05405 · DOI · Paper page
  194. C. Tessa et al. 2019. Central modulation of parasympathetic outflow is impaired in de novo Parkinson's disease patients. PLoS ONE 14, 1 (jan 2019), e0210324. https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210324 · DOI
  195. C. Tobon-Gomez et al. 2013. Benchmarking framework for myocardial tracking and deformation algorithms: An open access database. Medical Image Analysis 17, 6 (aug 2013), 632-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2013.03.008 · DOI
  196. C. Tobon-Gomez et al. 2015. Benchmark for Algorithms Segmenting the Left Atrium From 3D CT and MRI Datasets. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 34, 7 (2015), 1460-1473. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2015.2398818 · DOI
  197. R. Trullo et al. 2019. Multiorgan segmentation using distance-aware adversarial networks. Journal of Medical Imaging 6, 01 (2019), 1. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.6.1.014001 · DOI
  198. V. Ulman et al. 2017. An objective comparison of cell-tracking algorithms. Nature Methods 14, 12 (dec 2017), 1141-1152. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4473 · DOI
  199. M. Vallières et al. 2015. A radiomics model from joint FDG-PET and MRI texture features for the prediction of lung metastases in soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Physics in Medicine and Biology 60, 14 (jul 2015), 5471-5496. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5471 · DOI
  200. M. Vallières et al. 2017. Radiomics strategies for risk assessment of tumour failure in head-and-neck cancer. Scientific Reports 7, 1 (dec 2017), 10117. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 017-10371-5 arXiv:1703.08516 · DOI

200 of 229 shown

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, J., Zhu, G., Hua, C., Feng, M., BasheerBennamoun, Li, P., Lu, X., Song, J., Shen, P., Xu, X., Mei, L., Zhang, L., Shah, S. A. A., & Bennamoun, M.
Affiliations
  • Xidian University (CN)
  • Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China (CN)
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Volume
56
Issue
5
Pages
1-51
ISSN
0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2106.12864
arXiv
2106.12864
OpenAlex
W4385877222
Cited by
61
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (COVID-19, 62072358)
  • Zhejiang University
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2019YFB1311600)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
medical image dataset, deep learning, medical image analysis, dataset collection, head and neck imaging, pathology images, data access barriers

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