Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33251080›Full record

ArticleIEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions2020

Semantic Segmentation of Smartphone Wound Images: Comparative Analysis of AHRF and CNN-Based Approaches.

Ameya Wagh, Shubham Jain, Apratim Mukherjee, Emmanuel Agu, Peder Pedersen, Diane Strong, Bengisu Tulu, Clifford Lindsay, Ziyang Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Real-Time Tracking of Object Melting Based on Enhanced DeepLabComputational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ameya WaghComputer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 01609.
Shubham JainComputer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 01609.
Apratim MukherjeeComputer Science Department, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal, Karnataka, India, 576104.
Emmanuel AguComputer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 01609.
Peder PedersenComputer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 01609.
Diane StrongComputer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 01609.
Bengisu TuluComputer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 01609.
Clifford LindsayRadiology Department, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester MA, USA, 01655.
Ziyang LiuComputer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 01609.

Funding

SCH:Smartphone Wound Image Parameter Analysis and Decision Support in Mobile EnvR01EB025801 · NIBIB · WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI AGU, EMMANUEL · 2018 to 2021
$1.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB025801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smartphone wound image analysis has recently emerged as a viable way to assess healing progress and provide actionable feedback to patients and caregivers between hospital appointments. Segmentation is a key image analysis step, after which attributes of the wound segment (e.g. wound area and tissue composition) can be analyzed. The Associated Hierarchical Random Field (AHRF) formulates the image segmentation problem as a graph optimization problem. Handcrafted features are extracted, which are then classified using machine learning classifiers. More recently deep learning approaches have emerged and demonstrated superior performance for a wide range of image analysis tasks. FCN, U-Net and DeepLabV3 are Convolutional Neural Networks used for semantic segmentation. While in separate experiments each of these methods have shown promising results, no prior work has comprehensively and systematically compared the approaches on the same large wound image dataset, or more generally compared deep learning vs non-deep learning wound image segmentation approaches. In this paper, we compare the segmentation performance of AHRF and CNN approaches (FCN, U-Net, DeepLabV3) using various metrics including segmentation accuracy (dice score), inference time, amount of training data required and performance on diverse wound sizes and tissue types. Improvements possible using various image pre- and post-processing techniques are also explored. As access to adequate medical images/data is a common constraint, we explore the sensitivity of the approaches to the size of the wound dataset. We found that for small datasets (< 300 images), AHRF is more accurate than U-Net but not as accurate as FCN and DeepLabV3. AHRF is also over 1000x slower. For larger datasets (> 300 images), AHRF saturates quickly, and all CNN approaches (FCN, U-Net and DeepLabV3) are significantly more accurate than AHRF.

Indexed as

Associative Hierarchical Random Fieldschronic woundsContrast Limited Adaptive Histogram EqualizationConvolutional Neural NetworkDeepLabV3FCNsemantic segmentationU-NetWound image analysis

Identifiers

PMID33251080
PMCPMC7695230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.