When integrating computational tools such as automatic segmentation into clinical practice, it is of utmost importance to be able to assess the level of accuracy on new data, and in particular, to detect when an automatic method fails. However, this is difficult to achieve due to absence of ground truth. Segmentation accuracy on clinical data might be different from what is found through cross-validation because validation data is often used during incremental method development, which can lead to overfitting and unrealistic performance expectations. Before deployment, performance is quantified using different metrics, for which the predicted segmentation is compared to a reference segmentation, often obtained manually by an expert. But little is known about the real performance after deployment when a reference is unavailable. In this paper, we introduce the concept of reverse classification accuracy (RCA) as a framework for predicting the performance of a segmentation method on new data. In RCA we take the predicted segmentation from a new image to train a reverse classifier which is evaluated on a set of reference images with available ground truth. The hypothesis is that if the predicted segmentation is of good quality, then the reverse classifier will perform well on at least some of the reference images. We validate our approach on multi-organ segmentation with different classifiers and segmentation methods. Our results indicate that it is indeed possible to predict the quality of individual segmentations, in the absence of ground truth. Thus, RCA is ideal for integration into automatic processing pipelines in clinical routine and as part of large-scale image analysis studies.
Meanwhile, unsupervised methods @cite_3 @cite_1 aim to estimate the segmentation accuracy directly from the images and labelmaps using, for example, information-theoretic and geometrical features. While unsupervised methods can be applied to scenarios where the main purpose of segmentation is to yield visually consistent results that are meaningful to a human observer, the application in medical settings is unclear.
@cite_1 @cite_3
2594608309 2008043556 2664923123 2148347694
When integrating computational tools, such as automatic segmentation, into clinical practice, it is of utmost importance to be able to assess the level of accuracy on new data and, in particular, to detect when an automatic method fails. However, this is difficult to achieve due to the absence of ground truth. Segmentation accuracy on clinical data might be different from what is found through cross validation, because validation data are often used during incremental method development, which can lead to overfitting and unrealistic performance expectations. Before deployment, performance is quantified using different metrics, for which the predicted segmentation is compared with a reference segmentation, often obtained manually by an expert. But little is known about the real performance after deployment when a reference is unavailable. In this paper, we introduce the concept of reverse classification accuracy (RCA) as a framework for predicting the performance of a segmentation method on new data. In RCA, we take the predicted segmentation from a new image to train a reverse classifier, which is evaluated on a set of reference images with available ground truth. The hypothesis is that if the predicted segmentation is of good quality, then the reverse classifier will perform well on at least some of the reference images. We validate our approach on multi-organ segmentation with different classifiers and segmentation methods. Our results indicate that it is indeed possible to predict the quality of individual segmentations, in the absence of ground truth. Thus, RCA is ideal for integration into automatic processing pipelines in clinical routine and as a part of large-scale image analysis studies. Image segmentation is an important processing step in many image, video and computer vision applications. Extensive research has been done in creating many different approaches and algorithms for image segmentation, but it is still difficult to assess whether one algorithm produces more accurate segmentations than another, whether it be for a particular image or set of images, or more generally, for a whole class of images. To date, the most common method for evaluating the effectiveness of a segmentation method is subjective evaluation, in which a human visually compares the image segmentation results for separate segmentation algorithms, which is a tedious process and inherently limits the depth of evaluation to a relatively small number of segmentation comparisons over a predetermined set of images. Another common evaluation alternative is supervised evaluation, in which a segmented image is compared against a manually-segmented or pre-processed reference image. Evaluation methods that require user assistance, such as subjective evaluation and supervised evaluation, are infeasible in many vision applications, so unsupervised methods are necessary. Unsupervised evaluation enables the objective comparison of both different segmentation methods and different parameterizations of a single method, without requiring human visual comparisons or comparison with a manually-segmented or pre-processed reference image. Additionally, unsupervised methods generate results for individual images and images whose characteristics may not be known until evaluation time. Unsupervised methods are crucial to real-time segmentation evaluation, and can furthermore enable self-tuning of algorithm parameters based on evaluation results. In this paper, we examine the unsupervised objective evaluation methods that have been proposed in the literature. An extensive evaluation of these methods are presented. The advantages and shortcomings of the underlying design mechanisms in these methods are discussed and analyzed through analytical evaluation and empirical evaluation. Finally, possible future directions for research in unsupervised evaluation are proposed. Conventional unsupervised image segmentation methods use color and geometric information and apply clustering algorithms over pixels. They preserve object boundaries well but often suffer from over-segmentation due to noise and artifacts in the images. In this paper, we contribute on a preprocessing step for image smoothing, which alleviates the burden of conventional unsupervised image segmentation and enhance their performance. Our approach relies on a convolutional autoencoder (CAE) with the total variation loss (TVL) for unsupervised learning. We show that, after our CAE-TVL preprocessing step, the over-segmentation effect is significantly reduced using the same unsupervised image segmentation methods. We evaluate our approach using the BSDS500 image segmentation benchmark dataset and show the performance enhancement introduced by our approach in terms of both increased segmentation accuracy and reduced computation time. We examine the robustness of the trained CAE and show that it is directly applicable to other natural scene images. Characterizing the performance of image segmentation approaches has been a persistent challenge. Performance analysis is important since segmentation algorithms often have limited accuracy and precision. Interactive drawing of the desired segmentation by human raters has often been the only acceptable approach, and yet suffers from intra-rater and inter-rater variability. Automated algorithms have been sought in order to remove the variability introduced by raters, but such algorithms must be assessed to ensure they are suitable for the task. The performance of raters (human or algorithmic) generating segmentations of medical images has been difficult to quantify because of the difficulty of obtaining or estimating a known true segmentation for clinical data. Although physical and digital phantoms can be constructed for which ground truth is known or readily estimated, such phantoms do not fully reflect clinical images due to the difficulty of constructing phantoms which reproduce the full range of imaging characteristics and normal and pathological anatomical variability observed in clinical data. Comparison to a collection of segmentations by raters is an attractive alternative since it can be carried out directly on the relevant clinical imaging data. However, the most appropriate measure or set of measures with which to compare such segmentations has not been clarified and several measures are used in practice. We present here an expectation-maximization algorithm for simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE). The algorithm considers a collection of segmentations and computes a probabilistic estimate of the true segmentation and a measure of the performance level represented by each segmentation. The source of each segmentation in the collection may be an appropriately trained human rater or raters, or may be an automated segmentation algorithm. The probabilistic estimate of the true segmentation is formed by estimating an optimal combination of the segmentations, weighting each segmentation depending upon the estimated performance level, and incorporating a prior model for the spatial distribution of structures being segmented as well as spatial homogeneity constraints. STAPLE is straightforward to apply to clinical imaging data, it readily enables assessment of the performance of an automated image segmentation algorithm, and enables direct comparison of human rater and algorithm performance.