Abstract
Characterizing the performance of image segmentation approaches has been a persistent challenge. Performance analysis is important since segmentation algorithms often have limited accuracy and precision. Interactive drawing of the desired segmentation by domain experts has often been the only acceptable approach, and yet suffers from intra-expert and inter-expert variability. Automated algorithms have been sought in order to remove the variability introduced by experts, but no single methodology for the assessment and validation of such algorithms has yet been widely adopted. The accuracy of segmentations of medical images has been difficult to quantify in the absence of a “ground truth” segmentation for clinical data. Although physical or digital phantoms can help, they have so far been unable to reproduce the full range of imaging and anatomical characteristics observed in clinical data. An attractive alternative is comparison to a collection of segmentations by experts, but the most appropriate way to compare segmentations has been unclear.
We present here an Expectation-Maximization algorithm for computing a probabilistic estimate of the “ground truth” segmentation from a group of expert segmentations, and a simultaneous measure of the quality of each expert. This approach readily enables the assessment of an automated image segmentation algorithm, and direct comparison of expert and algorithm performance.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
M. Styner, C. Brechbühler, G. Székely, and G. Gerig, “Parametric estimate of intensity inho-mogeneities applied to MRI,” IEEE Transactions On Medical Imaging, vol. 19, pp. 153–165, March 2000.
D. Collins, A. Zijdenbos, V. Kollokian, J. Sled, N. Kabani, C. Holmes, and A. Evans, “Design and Construction of a Realistic Digital Brain Phantom,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 17, pp. 463–468, June 1998.
L. R. Dice, “Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species,” Ecology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 297–302, 1945.
P. Jaccard, “The distribution of flora in the alpine zone,” New Phytologist, vol. 11, pp. 37–50, 1912.
A. P. Zijdenbos, B. M. Dawant, R. A. Margolin, and A. C. Palmer, “Morphometric Analysis of White Matter Lesions in MR Images: Method and Validation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 13, pp. 716–724, December 1994.
S. Warfield, J. Dengler, J. Zaers, C. R. Guttmann, W. M. Wells III, G. J. Ettinger, J. Hiller, and R. Kikinis, “Automatic Identification of Grey Matter Structures from MRI to Improve the Segmentation of White Matter Lesions,” J Image GuidSurg, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 326–338, 1995.
S. K. Warfield, R. V. Mulkern, C. S. Winalski, F. A. Jolesz, and R. Kikinis, “An Image Processing Strategy for the Quantification and Visualization of Exercise Induced Muscle MRI Signal Enhancement,” JMagn Reson Imaging, vol. 11, pp. 525–531, May 2000.
A. Dempster, N. Laird, and D. Rubin, “Maximum-likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm,” J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B., vol. 39, pp. 34–37, 1977.
S. K. Warfield, M. Kaus, F. A. Jolesz, and R. Kikinis, “Adaptive, Template Moderated, Spatially Varying Statistical Classification,” Med Image Anal, vol. 4, pp. 43–55, Mar 2000.
M. Kaus, S. K. Warfield, A. Nabavi, P. M. Black, F. A. Jolesz, and R. Kikinis, “Automated Segmentation of MRI of Brain Tumors,” Radiology, vol. 218, pp. 586–591, Feb 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Warfield, S.K., Zou, K.H., Wells, W.M. (2002). Validation of Image Segmentation and Expert Quality with an Expectation-Maximization Algorithm. In: Dohi, T., Kikinis, R. (eds) Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention — MICCAI 2002. MICCAI 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2488. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45786-0_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45786-0_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44224-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45786-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive