A Robust and Explainable Structure-Based Algorithm for Detecting the Organ Boundary From Ultrasound Multi-Datasets.

Detecting the organ boundary in an ultrasound image is challenging because of the poor contrast of ultrasound images and the existence of imaging artifacts. In this study, we developed a coarse-to-refinement architecture for multi-organ ultrasound segmentation. First, we integrated the principal cur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Digital Imaging Vol. 36; no. 4; pp. 1515 - 1533
Autores principales: Peng, Tao, Gu, Yidong, Zhang, Ji, Dong, Yan, DI, Gongye, Wang, Wenjie, Zhao, Jing, Cai, Jing
Formato: algorithm diagnostic images equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Aug2023
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Detecting the organ boundary in an ultrasound image is challenging because of the poor contrast of ultrasound images and the existence of imaging artifacts. In this study, we developed a coarse-to-refinement architecture for multi-organ ultrasound segmentation. First, we integrated the principal curve–based projection stage into an improved neutrosophic mean shift–based algorithm to acquire the data sequence, for which we utilized a limited amount of prior seed point information as the approximate initialization. Second, a distribution-based evolution technique was designed to aid in the identification of a suitable learning network. Then, utilizing the data sequence as the input of the learning network, we achieved the optimal learning network after learning network training. Finally, a scaled exponential linear unit–based interpretable mathematical model of the organ boundary was expressed via the parameters of a fraction-based learning network. The experimental outcomes indicated that our algorithm 1) achieved more satisfactory segmentation outcomes than state-of-the-art algorithms, with a Dice score coefficient value of 96.68 ± 2.2%, a Jaccard index value of 95.65 ± 2.16%, and an accuracy of 96.54 ± 1.82% and 2) discovered missing or blurry areas.