Anatomy-aware measurement of segmentation accuracy

Quantifying the accuracy of segmentation and manual delineation of organs, tissue types and tumors in medical images is a necessary measurement that suffers from multiple problems. One major shortcoming of all accuracy measures is that they neglect the anatomical significance or relevance of different zones within a given segment. Hence, existing accuracy metrics measure the overlap of a given segment with a ground-truth without any anatomical discrimination inside the segment. For instance, if we understand the rectal wall or urethral sphincter as anatomical zones, then current accuracy measures ignore their significance when they are applied to assess the quality of the prostate gland segments. In this paper, we propose an anatomy-aware measurement scheme for segmentation accuracy of medical images. The idea is to create a “master gold” based on a consensus shape containing not just the outline of the segment but also the outlines of the internal zones if existent or relevant. To apply this new approach to accuracy measurement, we introduce the anatomy-aware extensions of both Dice coefficient and Jaccard index and investigate their effect using 500 synthetic prostate ultrasound images with 20 different segments for each image. We show that through anatomy-sensitive calculation of segmentation accuracy, namely by considering relevant anatomical zones, not only the measurement of individual users can change but also the ranking of users' segmentation skills may require reordering.

[1]  William M. Wells,et al.  Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  H.R. Tizhoosh,et al.  Application of Opposition-Based Reinforcement Learning in Image Segmentation , 2007, 2007 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Image and Signal Processing.

[3]  L. R. Dice Measures of the Amount of Ecologic Association Between Species , 1945 .

[4]  Jayaram K. Udupa,et al.  A framework for evaluating image segmentation algorithms , 2006, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[5]  Hamid R. Tizhoosh,et al.  N-cuts parameter adjustment using evolving fuzzy inferencing , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE).

[6]  Martin Engelhardt,et al.  Statistical validation metric for accuracy assessment in medical image segmentation , 2007, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[7]  Fernando Pereira,et al.  Objective evaluation of relative segmentation quality , 2000, Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.00CH37101).

[8]  Woei-Chyn Chu,et al.  Performance measure characterization for evaluating neuroimage segmentation algorithms , 2009, NeuroImage.

[9]  P. Jaccard THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FLORA IN THE ALPINE ZONE.1 , 1912 .

[10]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[11]  Xiaodong Wu,et al.  Comparative Study With New Accuracy Metrics for Target Volume Contouring in PET Image Guided Radiation Therapy , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[12]  Hamid R. Tizhoosh,et al.  EFIS—Evolving Fuzzy Image Segmentation , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[13]  Xiaodong Wu,et al.  Comparative study with new accuracy metrics for target volume contouring in PET image guided radiation therapy. , 2012, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.