Cargando…

Testing Segmentation Popular Loss and Variations in Three Multiclass Medical Imaging Problems

Image structures are segmented automatically using deep learning (DL) for analysis and processing. The three most popular base loss functions are cross entropy (crossE), intersect-over-the-union (IoU), and dice. Which should be used, is it useful to consider simple variations, such as modifying form...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Furtado, Pedro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321275/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34460615
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7020016
_version_ 1783730812462563328
author Furtado, Pedro
author_facet Furtado, Pedro
author_sort Furtado, Pedro
collection PubMed
description Image structures are segmented automatically using deep learning (DL) for analysis and processing. The three most popular base loss functions are cross entropy (crossE), intersect-over-the-union (IoU), and dice. Which should be used, is it useful to consider simple variations, such as modifying formula coefficients? How do characteristics of different image structures influence scores? Taking three different medical image segmentation problems (segmentation of organs in magnetic resonance images (MRI), liver in computer tomography images (CT) and diabetic retinopathy lesions in eye fundus images (EFI)), we quantify loss functions and variations, as well as segmentation scores of different targets. We first describe the limitations of metrics, since loss is a metric, then we describe and test alternatives. Experimentally, we observed that DeeplabV3 outperforms UNet and fully convolutional network (FCN) in all datasets. Dice scored 1 to 6 percentage points (pp) higher than cross entropy over all datasets, IoU improved 0 to 3 pp. Varying formula coefficients improved scores, but the best choices depend on the dataset: compared to crossE, different false positive vs. false negative weights improved MRI by 12 pp, and assigning zero weight to background improved EFI by 6 pp. Multiclass segmentation scored higher than n-uniclass segmentation in MRI by 8 pp. EFI lesions score low compared to more constant structures (e.g., optic disk or even organs), but loss modifications improve those scores significantly 6 to 9 pp. Our conclusions are that dice is best, it is worth assigning 0 weight to class background and to test different weights on false positives and false negatives.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8321275
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83212752021-08-26 Testing Segmentation Popular Loss and Variations in Three Multiclass Medical Imaging Problems Furtado, Pedro J Imaging Article Image structures are segmented automatically using deep learning (DL) for analysis and processing. The three most popular base loss functions are cross entropy (crossE), intersect-over-the-union (IoU), and dice. Which should be used, is it useful to consider simple variations, such as modifying formula coefficients? How do characteristics of different image structures influence scores? Taking three different medical image segmentation problems (segmentation of organs in magnetic resonance images (MRI), liver in computer tomography images (CT) and diabetic retinopathy lesions in eye fundus images (EFI)), we quantify loss functions and variations, as well as segmentation scores of different targets. We first describe the limitations of metrics, since loss is a metric, then we describe and test alternatives. Experimentally, we observed that DeeplabV3 outperforms UNet and fully convolutional network (FCN) in all datasets. Dice scored 1 to 6 percentage points (pp) higher than cross entropy over all datasets, IoU improved 0 to 3 pp. Varying formula coefficients improved scores, but the best choices depend on the dataset: compared to crossE, different false positive vs. false negative weights improved MRI by 12 pp, and assigning zero weight to background improved EFI by 6 pp. Multiclass segmentation scored higher than n-uniclass segmentation in MRI by 8 pp. EFI lesions score low compared to more constant structures (e.g., optic disk or even organs), but loss modifications improve those scores significantly 6 to 9 pp. Our conclusions are that dice is best, it is worth assigning 0 weight to class background and to test different weights on false positives and false negatives. MDPI 2021-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8321275/ /pubmed/34460615 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7020016 Text en © 2021 by the author. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle Article
Furtado, Pedro
Testing Segmentation Popular Loss and Variations in Three Multiclass Medical Imaging Problems
title Testing Segmentation Popular Loss and Variations in Three Multiclass Medical Imaging Problems
title_full Testing Segmentation Popular Loss and Variations in Three Multiclass Medical Imaging Problems
title_fullStr Testing Segmentation Popular Loss and Variations in Three Multiclass Medical Imaging Problems
title_full_unstemmed Testing Segmentation Popular Loss and Variations in Three Multiclass Medical Imaging Problems
title_short Testing Segmentation Popular Loss and Variations in Three Multiclass Medical Imaging Problems
title_sort testing segmentation popular loss and variations in three multiclass medical imaging problems
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321275/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34460615
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7020016
work_keys_str_mv AT furtadopedro testingsegmentationpopularlossandvariationsinthreemulticlassmedicalimagingproblems