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.
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. We present in this paper a study of unsupervised evaluation criteria that enable the quantification of the quality of an image segmentation result. These evaluation criteria compute some statistics for each region or class in a segmentation result. Such an evaluation criterion can be useful for different applications: the comparison of segmentation results, the automatic choice of the best fitted parameters of a segmentation method for a given image, or the definition of new segmentation methods by optimization. We first present the state of art of unsupervised evaluation, and then, we compare six unsupervised evaluation criteria. For this comparative study, we use a database composed of 8400 synthetic gray-level images segmented in four different ways. Vinet's measure (correct classification rate) is used as an objective criterion to compare the behavior of the different criteria. Finally, we present the experimental results on the segmentation evaluation of a few gray-level natural images.