Author Affiliations
School of Electronic and Information, Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, Jiangsu , Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Overall network structure of MPU-Net
Fig. 2. Fundus vascular and microvascular labels. (a) Ground truth; (b) microvascular label
Fig. 3. Example of a morphological structure operator
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the multi-scale feature mixing and fusion module (MSF)
Fig. 5. Vascular segmentation dataset
Fig. 6. Heat map examples showing the probabilistic features output by the network before and after adding MSF
Fig. 7. Heat map examples showing the probability features output by the network before and after adding Mic-Net
Fig. 8. Vascular segmentation examples of ablation experiment on the DRIVE test set
Fig. 9. Vascular segmentation examples of ablation experiment on the CHASE_DB1 test set
Fig. 10. Vascular segmentation examples of ablation experiment on the STARE test set
Method | Year | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
---|
U-Net[6] | 2015 | 0.9531 | 0.7537 | 0.9820 | 0.9755 | Yan et al.[20] | 2019 | 0.9538 | 0.7631 | 0.9820 | 0.9750 | DG-Net[10] | 2020 | 0.9604 | 0.7614 | 0.9837 | 0.9846 | CS2-Net[21] | 2021 | 0.9553 | 0.8154 | 0.9757 | 0.9784 | ACCA-MLA-D-U-Net[12] | 2022 | 0.9581 | 0.8046 | 0.9850 | 0.9827 | Mao et al.[14] | 2023 | | 0.8105 | 0.9785 | 0.9812 | TDCAU-Net[16] | 2024 | 0.9556 | 0.8187 | 0.9756 | 0.9795 | MPU-Net (ours) | 2024 | 0.9710 | 0.8243 | 0.9853 | 0.9889 |
|
Table 1. Experimental results comparison of MPU-Net with existing state-of-the-art methods on the DRIVE test set
Method | Year | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
---|
U-Net[6] | 2015 | 0.9578 | 0.8228 | 0.9701 | 0.9772 | Vessel-Net[22] | 2019 | 0.9661 | 0.8132 | 0.9814 | 0.9860 | CS2-Net[21] | 2021 | 0.9651 | 0.8329 | 0.9784 | 0.9851 | ACCA-MLA-D-U-Net[12] | 2022 | 0.9673 | 0.8402 | 0.9801 | 0.9874 | WA-Net[23] | 2022 | 0.9653 | 0.8042 | 0.9826 | 0.9841 | Mao et al.[14] | 2023 | | 0.8241 | 0.9850 | 0.9893 | TDCAU-Net[16] | 2024 | 0.9738 | 0.8243 | 0.9836 | 0.9878 | MPU-Net (ours) | 2024 | 0.9764 | 0.8593 | 0.9844 | 0.9913 |
|
Table 2. Experimental results comparison of MPU-Net with existing state-of-the-art methods on the CHASE_DB1 test set
Method | Year | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
---|
Yan et al.[24] | 2018 | 0.9612 | 0.7581 | 0.9846 | 0.9801 | Yan et al.[20] | 2019 | 0.9638 | 0.7735 | 0.9857 | 0.9833 | CS2-Net[21] | 2021 | 0.9670 | 0.8396 | 0.9813 | 0.9875 | ACCA-MLA-D-U-Net[12] | 2022 | 0.9665 | 0.7914 | 0.9870 | 0.9864 | LUVS-Net[25] | 2023 | 0.9753 | 0.8133 | 0.9861 | 0.8187 | MPU-Net (ours) | 2024 | 0.9768 | 0.7844 | 0.9907 | 0.9905 |
|
Table 3. Experimental results comparison of MPU-Net with existing state-of-the-art methods on the STARE test set
Dataset | Method | MSF | Mic-Net | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dice coefficient | AUC | Sen_Mic |
---|
DRIVE | 1 | × | × | 0.9672± 0.0002 | 0.7928± 0.0073 | 0.9842± 0.0009 | 0.8082±0.0008 | 0.9816± 0.0010 | 0.6815± 0.0127 | 2 | √ | × | 0.9708 ±0.0001 | 0.8234 ±0.0052 | 0.9851± 0.0006 | 0.8309±0.0002 | 0.9887± 0.0001 | 0.7153± 0.0066 | 3 | √ | √ | 0.9710± 0.0001 | 0.8243± 0.0012 | 0.9853± 0.0002 | 0.8314±0.0002 | 0.9889± 0.0001 | 0.7199± 0.0013 | Dataset | Method | MSF | Mic-Net | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dice coefficient | AUC | Sen_Mic | CHASE_DB1 | 1 | × | × | 0.9757± 0.0001 | 0.8296± 0.0037 | 0.9855± 0.0003 | 0.8112±0.0006 | 0.9878± 0.0006 | 0.7528± 0.0050 | 2 | √ | × | 0.9762± 0.0002 | 0.8563± 0.0045 | 0.9843± 0.0005 | 0.8193±0.0042 | 0.9912± 0.0001 | 0.7833± 0.0064 | 3 | √ | √ | 0.9764± 0.0002 | 0.8593± 0.0034 | 0.9844± 0.0005 | 0.8212±0.0032 | 0.9913± 0.0001 | 0.7874± 0.0052 | Dataset | Method | MSF | Mic-Net | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dice coefficient | AUC | Sen_Mic | STARE | 1 | × | × | 0.9766± 0.0005 | 0.7413± 0.0100 | 0.9931± 0.0003 | 0.7979±0.0056 | 0.9831± 0.0013 | 0.6066± 0.0184 | 2 | √ | × | 0.9764± 0.0003 | 0.7726± 0.0081 | 0.9911± 0.0005 | 0.8031±0.0030 | 0.9829± 0.0011 | 0.6345± 0.0090 | 3 | √ | √ | 0.9768± 0.0002 | 0.7844± 0.0059 | 0.9907± 0.0005 | 0.8089±0.0016 | 0.9905± 0.0005 | 0.6388± 0.0042 |
|
Table 4. Comparison in ablation experimental results (mean ± std)