Cargando…
DBE-Net: Dual Boundary-Guided Attention Exploration Network for Polyp Segmentation
Automatic segmentation of polyps during colonoscopy can help doctors accurately find the polyp area and remove abnormal tissues in time to reduce the possibility of polyps transforming into cancer. However, the current polyp segmentation research still has the following problems: blurry polyp bounda...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10001089/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36900040 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050896 |
Sumario: | Automatic segmentation of polyps during colonoscopy can help doctors accurately find the polyp area and remove abnormal tissues in time to reduce the possibility of polyps transforming into cancer. However, the current polyp segmentation research still has the following problems: blurry polyp boundaries, multi-scale adaptability of polyps, and close resemblances between polyps and nearby normal tissues. To tackle these issues, this paper proposes a dual boundary-guided attention exploration network (DBE-Net) for polyp segmentation. Firstly, we propose a dual boundary-guided attention exploration module to solve the boundary-blurring problem. This module uses a coarse-to-fine strategy to progressively approximate the real polyp boundary. Secondly, a multi-scale context aggregation enhancement module is introduced to accommodate the multi-scale variation of polyps. Finally, we propose a low-level detail enhancement module, which can extract more low-level details and promote the performance of the overall network. Extensive experiments on five polyp segmentation benchmark datasets show that our method achieves superior performance and stronger generalization ability than state-of-the-art methods. Especially for CVC-ColonDB and ETIS, two challenging datasets among the five datasets, our method achieves excellent results of 82.4% and 80.6% in terms of mDice (mean dice similarity coefficient) and improves by 5.1% and 5.9% compared to the state-of-the-art methods. |
---|