2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109818
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Target-aware U-Net with fuzzy skip connections for refined pancreas segmentation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although Recall is less widely employed compared to DSC, [60] also leads with a superior score of 91.13%±1.48 in this metric. Utilization of the Jaccard index is relatively infrequent; nonetheless, [46] scores 78.52%±4.14, demonstrating robust performance. As for processing time, significant variations are present across different studies, governed by the variation in hardware and software configurations used; notably, [30] reports a processing time of just 0.179 seconds, while [50] extends up to 1.26 minutes.…”
Section: B Performance Metric Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although Recall is less widely employed compared to DSC, [60] also leads with a superior score of 91.13%±1.48 in this metric. Utilization of the Jaccard index is relatively infrequent; nonetheless, [46] scores 78.52%±4.14, demonstrating robust performance. As for processing time, significant variations are present across different studies, governed by the variation in hardware and software configurations used; notably, [30] reports a processing time of just 0.179 seconds, while [50] extends up to 1.26 minutes.…”
Section: B Performance Metric Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This not only suppresses irrelevant background features but also enhances features relevant to the target. This modification leads to an approximate 5% improvement in segmentation accuracy [46].…”
Section: Skip Connection Variationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…All submissions will be thoroughly reviewed through a single-blind peer-review process. Currently, MI and MIP entail several challenges [30], such as low-resolution quality, high-level noise, low contrast, geometric deformations, presence of artifacts [31], small-size dataset [32], large computational burdens [33], long training time, etc. In our previous successful Special Issues, 'Medical Imaging & Image Processing' in 2015 and 'Medical Imaging & Image Processing II' in 2018, the authors partially solved the aforementioned challenges and reported their research outputs.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%