Paper detail

Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem

Automated segmentation of anatomical structures is a crucial step in image analysis. For lung segmentation in computed tomography, a variety of approaches exist, involving sophisticated pipelines trained and validated on different datasets. However, the clinical applicability of these approaches across diseases remains limited. We compared four generic deep learning approaches trained on various datasets and two readily available lung segmentation algorithms. We performed evaluation on routine imaging data with more than six different disease patterns and three published data sets. Using different deep learning approaches, mean Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) on test datasets varied not over 0.02. When trained on a diverse routine dataset (n = 36) a standard approach (U-net) yields a higher DSC (0.97 $\pm$ 0.05) compared to training on public datasets such as Lung Tissue Research Consortium (0.94 $\pm$ 0.13, p = 0.024) or Anatomy 3 (0.92 $\pm$ 0.15, p = 0.001). Trained on routine data (n = 231) covering multiple diseases, U-net compared to reference methods yields a DSC of 0.98 $\pm$ 0.03 versus 0.94 $\pm$ 0.12 (p = 0.024).

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.