Author Affiliations
1 School of Microelectronics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China2 Tianjin Weishen Technology Company Limited, Tianjin 300384, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Framework of the segmentation algorithm proposed
Fig. 2. Four types of brain tumor MRI images and the expert segmentation result
Fig. 3. Three types of brain tumor MRI images and the fused image. (a) Flair; (b) T1C; (c) T2; (d) fused image
Fig. 4. Histograms of three types of brain tumor MRI images and the fused image. (a) Flair; (b) T1C; (c) T2; (d) fused image
Fig. 5. Main steps of HGG 3D segmentation. (a) Under-segmented image; (b) accurate-segmented image; (c) final segmented result; (d) gold standard
Fig. 6. Main steps of LGG 3D segmentation. (a) Under-segmented image; (b) accurate-segmented image; (c) final segmented result; (d) gold standard
Fusion ratio | 1∶0∶0 | 0∶1∶0 | 0∶0∶1 | 8∶0∶2 | 7∶1∶2 | 7∶0∶3 | 6∶0∶4 | 6∶1∶3 | 5∶2∶3 | 5∶1∶4 |
---|
Dice | 0.8277 | 0.2066 | 0.6989 | 0.8329 | 0.8368 | 0.8502 | 0.8600 | 0.8619 | 0.8608 | 0.8958 | Precision | 0.8965 | 0.4879 | 0.7687 | 0.9316 | 0.9349 | 0.9269 | 0.9246 | 0.9078 | 0.9014 | 0.9359 | Recall | 0.7545 | 0.3786 | 0.5758 | 0.7671 | 0.7820 | 0.8062 | 0.8004 | 0.8445 | 0.8601 | 0.8626 |
|
Table 1. Processing result of 45 images for different ratios
Direction | Under-segmented image | Accurate-segmented image | Final segmented image | Gold standard |
---|
Horizontalplane | | | | | Coronalplane | | | | | Sagittalplane | | | | | Dice | 0.8645 | 0.9007 | 0.9449 | |
|
Table 2. Segmentation of the HGG in various directions
Direction | Under-segmented image | Accurate-segmented image | Final segmented image | Gold standard |
---|
Horizontalplane | | | | | Coronalplane | | | | | Sagittalplane | | | | | Dice | 0.8662 | 0.9024 | 0.9038 | |
|
Table 3. Segmentation of the LGG in various directions
Method | Dice | Precision | Recall | Time /min |
---|
FCM | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.83 | 0.4 | Proposed | 0.90 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.3 |
|
Table 4. Segmentation performance evaluation of improved FCM segmentation method
Index | Statistics | HGG | LGG | All data |
---|
Dice | Max value | 0.9449 | 0.9038 | 0.9449 | Min value | 0.8521 | 0.8553 | 0.8521 | Mean | 0.8959 | 0.8848 | 0.8948 | Standard deviation | 0.0251 | 0.0221 | 0.0240 | Precision | Max value | 0.9861 | 0.9922 | 0.9922 | Min value | 0.8201 | 0.8034 | 0.8034 | Mean | 0.9359 | 0.9268 | 0.9351 | Standard deviation | 0.0470 | 0.0733 | 0.0492 | Recall | Max value | 0.9787 | 0.9412 | 0.9787 | Min value | 0.7582 | 0.7516 | 0.7582 | Mean | 0.8627 | 0.8543 | 0.8619 | Standard deviation | 0.0495 | 0.0681 | 0.0508 |
|
Table 5. Index statistics of HGG, LGG and all data
Method | Dice | Precision | Recall | Time /min |
---|
Zhao et al.[9] | 0.87 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 3 | Pereria et al.[10] | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 7.5 | Proposed | 0.90 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.3 |
|
Table 6. Segmentation performance evaluation of three segmentation methods