2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-75541-0_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic Segmentation of LV and RV in Cardiac MRI

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It can be observed that the proposed method is obviously superior to the other methods for RV and MYO segmentation. For the LV segmentation, the method by Khened achieves the best Dice score and Jang achieves the best HD score, and our result is very close to the optimal value in each metric. Overall, the above experimental results show that the proposed method achieves noticeable improvements against the single model based state‐of‐the‐art methods of the ACDC Challenge.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…It can be observed that the proposed method is obviously superior to the other methods for RV and MYO segmentation. For the LV segmentation, the method by Khened achieves the best Dice score and Jang achieves the best HD score, and our result is very close to the optimal value in each metric. Overall, the above experimental results show that the proposed method achieves noticeable improvements against the single model based state‐of‐the‐art methods of the ACDC Challenge.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Four papers used a modified version of the U-Net. Jang et al [45] implemented a "M-Net" [55] architecture whose main difference with U-Net resides in the feature maps of the decoding layers which are concatenated with those of the previous layer. The corresponding network was trained with a weighted cross-entropy loss.…”
Section: A Architectures For Cardiac Multi-structure Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, there are several variants of the crossentropy or soft-Dice loss such as the weighted cross-entropy loss (Jang et al, 2017;Baumgartner et al, 2017) and weighted soft-Dice loss (Yang et al, 2017c;Khened et al, 2019) that are used to address potential class imbalance problem in medical image segmentation tasks where the loss term is weighted to account for rare classes or small objects.…”
Section: Common Loss Functionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LGE MR imaging enables the Table 2. Segmentation accuracy of state-of-the-art segmentation methods verified on the cardiac bi-ventricular segmentation challenge (ACDC) dataset All the methods were evaluated on the same test set (50 subjects 2D GridNet-MD with registered shape prior 0.938 0.894 0.910 Khened et al (2019) 2D Dense U-net with inception module 0.941 0.894 0.907 Baumgartner et al (2017) 2D U-net with cross entropy loss 0.937 0.897 0.908 Zotti et al (2017) 2D GridNet with registered shape prior 0.931 0.890 0.912 Jang et al (2017) 2D M-Net with weighted cross entropy loss 0.940 0.885 0.907 Painchaud et al (2019) FCN followed by an AE for shape correction 0.936 0.889 0.909 Wolterink et al (2017c) Multi-input 2D dilated FCN, segmenting paired ED and ES frames simultaneously 0.940 0.885 0.900 Patravali et al (2017) 2D U-net with a Dice loss 0.920 0.890 0.865 Rohé et al (2017) Multi-atlas based method combined with 3D CNN for registration 0.929 0.868 0.881 Tziritas and Grinias (2017) Level-set +markov random field (MRF); Non-deep learning method 0.907 0.798 0.803 Yang et al (2017c) 3D FCN with deep supervision 0.820 N/A 0.780…”
Section: Scar Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%