Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2020 Jan 29;2(1):e190161.
doi: 10.1148/ryai.2020190161. eCollection 2020 Jan.

Magician's Corner: 4. Image Segmentation with U-Net

Affiliations
Editorial

Magician's Corner: 4. Image Segmentation with U-Net

Bradley J Erickson et al. Radiol Artif Intell. .

Abstract

A popular deep learning framework (Keras) is applied to the problem of image segmentation using a U-Net.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest: B.J.E. disclosed no relevant relationships. J.C. Activities related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Activities not related to the present article: employed by Mayo Clinic (salary for research fellow position). Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships.

Figures

Figure 1a:
Figure 1a:
The Dice similarity coefficient (or Dice score) ranges from 0 to 1. (a) In the case where there is no overlap between the reference standard contour (such as provided by a human) and the predicted contour, the Dice score is 0. (b) In cases where there is a small overlap, the Dice score will be a small number, about 0.1 in this case. (c) In the case where they exactly match, the Dice score is 1.0.
Figure 1b:
Figure 1b:
The Dice similarity coefficient (or Dice score) ranges from 0 to 1. (a) In the case where there is no overlap between the reference standard contour (such as provided by a human) and the predicted contour, the Dice score is 0. (b) In cases where there is a small overlap, the Dice score will be a small number, about 0.1 in this case. (c) In the case where they exactly match, the Dice score is 1.0.
Figure 1c:
Figure 1c:
The Dice similarity coefficient (or Dice score) ranges from 0 to 1. (a) In the case where there is no overlap between the reference standard contour (such as provided by a human) and the predicted contour, the Dice score is 0. (b) In cases where there is a small overlap, the Dice score will be a small number, about 0.1 in this case. (c) In the case where they exactly match, the Dice score is 1.0.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
U-Net architecture. Each block on the left side consists of a convolution, layer-wise normalization, and maximum value pooling. The latter pools a 2 × 2 block into 1 pixel, thus reducing both X and Y dimensions by a factor of two. The blocks on the right side use transpose convolution with a stride of two to increase the X and Y dimensions by a factor of two. In addition, there is a skip connection where information from the down-resolution blocks is fed to these blocks. Conv = 2D convolution, Norm = layer-wise normalization, MaxPool = maximum value pooling, TransposeConv = transpose convolution, Concat = concatenation of convolution kernel from left block to the kernel in this block. Sigmoid is the function to map to a probability value from 0 to 1.
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Graph shows the Dice loss (which is 1 − Dice similarity coefficient) at each epoch out to 100 epochs. Note that the blue and orange lines track each other until about 10, and after that point, the performance on the training set continues to improve but the performance on validation set plateaus, indicating that overfitting is occurring. Blue line = training loss curve, orange line = validation loss curve.
Figure 4:
Figure 4:
The performance on the test set of images. The images on the left are the ground truth (pancreas in cyan) and the right are the predicted. The overall Dice score for all images in the test set is 0.60, which is somewhat less than the validation performance but much less than the training set performance indicating that overfitting is occurring.

References

    1. Sharma N, Aggarwal LM. Automated medical image segmentation techniques. J Med Phys 2010;35(1):3–14. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Suetens P, Bellon E, Vandermeulen D, et al. . Image segmentation: methods and applications in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine. Eur J Radiol 1993;17(1):14–21. - PubMed
    1. Sullivan DC, Obuchowski NA, Kessler LG, et al. . Metrology Standards for Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers. Radiology 2015;277(3):813–825. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In: Navab N, Hornegger J, Wells WM, Frangi AF, eds. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015. MICCAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9351. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015; 234–241.
    1. Sørensen R. Temperatur- og pulsforhold ved appendicitis belyst ved 2.250 tilfaelde. Nord Med 1948;40(51):2389. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources