skip to main content
10.1145/3451421.3451438acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesisicdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Comparison of Segmentation Methods in Gastric Histopathology Images

Published:27 August 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Gastric Cancer is one of the five most common types of malignant tumors among men and women worldwide and it is very important to make precise diagnosis for the early stage of gastric cancer. In this paper, we compare eight methods in Gastric Histopathology Image Segmentation (GHIS) including most classical and state-of-the-art ones. For estimating the segmentation result, we use seven evaluation indexes. Our study carries out that deep learning method shows the effectiveness in GHIS and the DenseCRF using the U-Net feature map performs best overall.

References

  1. V. Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla. 2017. Segnet: A Deep Convolutional Encoder-decoder Architecture for Image Segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 39, 12(2017), 2481–2495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. T. Chan and L. Vese. 1999. An active contour model without edges. In International Conference on Scale-Space Theories in Computer Vision. 141–151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. L. Chen, G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, K. Murphy, and A.Yuille. 2018. DeepLab: Semantic Image Segmentation with Deep Convolutional Nets, Atrous Convolution, and Fully Connected CRFs. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 40, 4 (2018), 834–848.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. E. Garcia, R. Hermoza, C. Castanon, L. Cano, M. Castillo, and C. Castanñeda. 2017. Automatic Lymphocyte Detection on Gastric Cancer IHC Images Using Deep Learning. In Proc. of CBMS 2017. 200–204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Hartigan and M.Wong. 1979. Algorithm AS 136: A -means Clustering Algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) 28, 1 (1979), 100–108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. P. Krähenbühl and V. Koltun. 2011. Efficient inference in fully connected crfs with gaussian edge potentials. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 109–117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Li. 1994. Markov Random Field Models in Computer Vision. In Proc. of ECCV 1994. 361–370.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell. 2015. Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmentation. In Proc. of ICPR 2015. 3431–3440.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Osher, R. Fedkiw, and K. Piechor. 2004. Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces. Appl. Mech. Rev. 57, 3 (2004), B15–B15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. N. Otsu. 1979. A Threshold Selection Method from Gray-level Histograms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 9, 1 (1979), 62–66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox. 2015. U-net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Proc. of MICCAI 2015. 234–241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. B. Stewart and C. Wild. 2014. World Cancer Report 2014. World Health Organization, UN).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Tsai, A. Yezzi, W.Wells, C. Tempany, D. Tucker, A. Fan,W. Grimson, and A. Willsky. 2003. A Shape-based Approach to the Segmentation of Medical Imagery Using Level Sets. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 22, 2 (2003), 137–154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. L. Vincent and P. Soille. 1991.Watersheds in Digital Spaces: An Efficient Algorithm based on Immersion Simulations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 6 (1991), 583–598.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yezzi, S. Kichenassamy, A. Kumar, P. Olver, and A. Tannenbaum. 1997. A Geometric Snake Model for Segmentation of Medical Imagery. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 16, 2 (1997), 199–209.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Z. Zhang, J. Gao, G. Lv, and D. Zhao. 2018. Pathological Image Classification of Gastric Cancer based on Depth Learning. Computer Science 45, 11A (2018), 263–268.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ISICDM 2020: The Fourth International Symposium on Image Computing and Digital Medicine
    December 2020
    239 pages
    ISBN:9781450389686
    DOI:10.1145/3451421

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 27 August 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format