ArticleIEEE transactions on medical imaging2012
Discriminative segmentation-based evaluation through shape dissimilarity.
Article in IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validation.Nature methods · 2024Review
- Metrics reloaded: recommendations for image analysis validation.Nature methods · 2024Review
- Anatomy-Aware Inference of the 3D Standing Spine Posture from 2D Radiographs.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- High thickness histological sections as alternative to study the three-dimensional microscopic human sub-cortical neuroanatomy.Brain structure & function · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Segmentation-based scores play an important role in the evaluation of computational tools in medical image analysis. These scores evaluate the quality of various tasks, such as image registration and segmentation, by measuring the similarity between two binary label maps. Commonly these measurements blend two aspects of the similarity: pose misalignments and shape discrepancies. Not being able to distinguish between these two aspects, these scores often yield similar results to a widely varying range of different segmentation pairs. Consequently, the comparisons and analysis achieved by interpreting these scores become questionable. In this paper, we address this problem by exploring a new segmentation-based score, called normalized Weighted Spectral Distance (nWSD), that measures only shape discrepancies using the spectrum of the Laplace operator. Through experiments on synthetic and real data we demonstrate that nWSD provides additional information for evaluating differences between segmentations, which is not captured by other commonly used scores. Our results demonstrate that when jointly used with other scores, such as Dice's similarity coefficient, the additional information provided by nWSD allows richer, more discriminative evaluations. We show for the task of registration that through this addition we can distinguish different types of registration errors. This allows us to identify the source of errors and discriminate registration results which so far had to be treated as being of similar quality in previous evaluation studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.