Wagh Ameya, Jain Shubham, Mukherjee Apratim, Agu Emmanuel, Pedersen Peder, Strong Diane, Tulu Bengisu, Lindsay Clifford, Liu Ziyang
Computer Science Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 01609.
Computer Science Department, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal, Karnataka, India, 576104.
IEEE Access. 2020;8:181590-181604. doi: 10.1109/access.2020.3014175. Epub 2020 Aug 6.
Smartphone wound image analysis has recently emerged as a viable way to assess healing progress and provide actionable feedback to patients and caregivers between hospital appointments. Segmentation is a key image analysis step, after which attributes of the wound segment (e.g. wound area and tissue composition) can be analyzed. The Associated Hierarchical Random Field (AHRF) formulates the image segmentation problem as a graph optimization problem. Handcrafted features are extracted, which are then classified using machine learning classifiers. More recently deep learning approaches have emerged and demonstrated superior performance for a wide range of image analysis tasks. FCN, U-Net and DeepLabV3 are Convolutional Neural Networks used for semantic segmentation. While in separate experiments each of these methods have shown promising results, no prior work has comprehensively and systematically compared the approaches on the same large wound image dataset, or more generally compared deep learning vs non-deep learning wound image segmentation approaches. In this paper, we compare the segmentation performance of AHRF and CNN approaches (FCN, U-Net, DeepLabV3) using various metrics including segmentation accuracy (dice score), inference time, amount of training data required and performance on diverse wound sizes and tissue types. Improvements possible using various image pre- and post-processing techniques are also explored. As access to adequate medical images/data is a common constraint, we explore the sensitivity of the approaches to the size of the wound dataset. We found that for small datasets (< 300 images), AHRF is more accurate than U-Net but not as accurate as FCN and DeepLabV3. AHRF is also over 1000x slower. For larger datasets (> 300 images), AHRF saturates quickly, and all CNN approaches (FCN, U-Net and DeepLabV3) are significantly more accurate than AHRF.
智能手机伤口图像分析最近已成为一种可行的方法,用于评估愈合进展,并在医院预约之间为患者和护理人员提供可操作的反馈。分割是图像分析的关键步骤,在此之后可以分析伤口区域的属性(例如伤口面积和组织成分)。关联分层随机场(AHRF)将图像分割问题表述为一个图优化问题。提取手工制作的特征,然后使用机器学习分类器进行分类。最近,深度学习方法已经出现,并在广泛的图像分析任务中表现出卓越的性能。全卷积网络(FCN)、U-Net和深度卷积神经网络(DeepLabV3)是用于语义分割的卷积神经网络。虽然在单独的实验中,这些方法中的每一种都显示出了有希望的结果,但之前没有工作在同一个大型伤口图像数据集上全面、系统地比较这些方法,或者更广泛地比较深度学习与非深度学习伤口图像分割方法。在本文中,我们使用各种指标(包括分割准确率(骰子系数)、推理时间、所需训练数据量以及在不同伤口大小和组织类型上的性能)比较了AHRF和卷积神经网络方法(FCN、U-Net、DeepLabV3)的分割性能。还探索了使用各种图像预处理和后处理技术可能实现的改进。由于获取足够的医学图像/数据是一个常见的限制,我们研究了这些方法对伤口数据集大小的敏感性。我们发现,对于小数据集(<300张图像),AHRF比U-Net更准确,但不如FCN和DeepLabV3准确。AHRF的速度也慢1000多倍。对于更大的数据集(>300张图像),AHRF很快就会饱和,并且所有卷积神经网络方法(FCN、U-Net和DeepLabV3)都比AHRF准确得多。