On Simulating Subjective Evaluation Using Combined Objective Metrics for Validation of 3D Tumor Segmentation

In this paper, we present a new segmentation evaluation method that can simulate radiologist's subjective assessment of 3D tumor segmentation in CT images. The method uses a new metric defined as a linear combination of a set of commonly used objective metrics. The weighing parameters of the linear combination are determined by maximizing the rank correlation between radiologist's subjective rating and objective measurements. Experimental results on 93 lesions demonstrate that the new composite metric shows better performance in segmentation evaluation than each individual objective metric. Also, segmentation rating using the composite metric compares well with radiologist's subjective evaluation. Our method has the potential to facilitate the development of new tumor segmentation algorithms and assist large scale segmentation evaluation studies.

[1]  E. Van Cutsem,et al.  Size quantification of liver metastases in patients undergoing cancer treatment: reproducibility of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements determined with spiral CT. , 1997, Radiology.

[2]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[3]  David J. Sheskin,et al.  Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures , 1997 .

[4]  Touradj Ebrahimi,et al.  A Framework for Evaluating Video Object Segmentation Algorithms , 2006, 2006 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (CVPRW'06).

[5]  Touradj Ebrahimi,et al.  Objective evaluation of segmentation quality using spatio-temporal context , 2002, Proceedings. International Conference on Image Processing.

[6]  Y. J. Zhang,et al.  A survey on evaluation methods for image segmentation , 1996, Pattern Recognit..

[7]  R. D. Hunter,et al.  WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment , 1980 .

[8]  Christophe Rosenberger,et al.  Towards a New Tool for the Evaluation of the Quality of Ultrasound Compressed Images , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification (2nd ed.) , 1999 .

[10]  Leo Grady,et al.  Random Walks for Image Segmentation , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[11]  Michael Harville,et al.  Automatic Skin Pixel Selection and Skin Color Classification , 2006, 2006 International Conference on Image Processing.

[12]  M. Christian,et al.  [New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors]. , 2000, Bulletin du cancer.

[13]  S. Armato,et al.  Automated lung segmentation in digitized posteroanterior chest radiographs. , 1998, Academic radiology.

[14]  Paulo Villegas,et al.  Perceptually-weighted evaluation criteria for segmentation masks in video sequences , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[15]  J. Filipe,et al.  OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF VIDEO SEGMENTATION QUALITY , 2009 .

[16]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[17]  M. Palmer,et al.  WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment , 1982, British Journal of Cancer.