Reducing the Hausdorff Distance in Medical Image Segmentation With Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hausdorff Distance (HD) is widely used in evaluating medical image segmentation methods. However, the existing segmentation methods do not attempt to reduce HD directly. In this paper, we present novel loss functions for training convolutional neural network (CNN)-based segmentation methods with the goal of reducing HD directly. We propose three methods to estimate HD from the segmentation probability map produced by a CNN. One method makes use of the distance transform of the segmentation boundary. Another method is based on applying morphological erosion on the difference between the true and estimated segmentation maps. The third method works by applying circular/spherical convolution kernels of different radii on the segmentation probability maps. Based on these three methods for estimating HD, we suggest three loss functions that can be used for training to reduce HD. We use these loss functions to train CNNs for segmentation of the prostate, liver, and pancreas in ultrasound, magnetic resonance, and computed tomography images and compare the results with commonly-used loss functions. Our results show that the proposed loss functions can lead to approximately 18-45% reduction in HD without degrading other segmentation performance criteria such as the Dice similarity coefficient. The proposed loss functions can be used for training medical image segmentation methods in order to reduce the large segmentation errors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".