Paper detail

Segmentation of Cellular Patterns in Confocal Images of Melanocytic Lesions in vivo via a Multiscale Encoder-Decoder Network (MED-Net)

In-vivo optical microscopy is advancing into routine clinical practice for non-invasively guiding diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other diseases, and thus beginning to reduce the need for traditional biopsy. However, reading and analysis of the optical microscopic images are generally still qualitative, relying mainly on visual examination. Here we present an automated semantic segmentation method called "Multiscale Encoder-Decoder Network (MED-Net)" that provides pixel-wise labeling into classes of patterns in a quantitative manner. The novelty in our approach is the modeling of textural patterns at multiple scales. This mimics the procedure for examining pathology images, which routinely starts with low magnification (low resolution, large field of view) followed by closer inspection of suspicious areas with higher magnification (higher resolution, smaller fields of view). We trained and tested our model on non-overlapping partitions of 117 reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) mosaics of melanocytic lesions, an extensive dataset for this application, collected at four clinics in the US, and two in Italy. With patient-wise cross-validation, we achieved pixel-wise mean sensitivity and specificity of $70\pm11\%$ and $95\pm2\%$, respectively, with $0.71\pm0.09$ Dice coefficient over six classes. In the scenario, we partitioned the data clinic-wise and tested the generalizability of the model over multiple clinics. In this setting, we achieved pixel-wise mean sensitivity and specificity of $74\%$ and $95\%$, respectively, with $0.75$ Dice coefficient. We compared MED-Net against the state-of-the-art semantic segmentation models and achieved better quantitative segmentation performance. Our results also suggest that, due to its nested multiscale architecture, the MED-Net model annotated RCM mosaics more coherently, avoiding unrealistic-fragmented annotations.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access9 authors2 topics

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.

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 map preview

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.