The hippocampus is a small, yet intricate seahorse-shaped tiny structure located deep within the brain's medial temporal lobe. It is a crucial component of the limbic system, which is responsible for regulating emotions, memory, and spatial navigation. This research focuses on automatic hippocampus segmentation from Magnetic Resonance (MR) images of a human head with high accuracy and fewer false positive and false negative rates. This segmentation technique is significantly faster than the manual segmentation methods used in clinics. Unlike the existing approaches such as UNet and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), the proposed algorithm generates an image that is similar to a real image by learning the distribution much more quickly by the semi-supervised iterative learning algorithm of the Deep Neuro-Fuzzy (DNF) technique. To assess its effectiveness, the proposed segmentation technique was evaluated on a large dataset of 18,900 images from Kaggle, and the results were compared with those of existing methods. Based on the analysis of results reported in the experimental section, the proposed scheme in the Semi-Supervised Deep Neuro-Fuzzy Iterative Learning System (SS-DNFIL) achieved a 0.97 Dice coefficient, a 0.93 Jaccard coefficient, a 0.95 sensitivity (true positive rate), a 0.97 specificity (true negative rate), a false positive value of 0.09 and a 0.08 false negative value when compared to existing approaches. Thus, the proposed segmentation techniques outperform the existing techniques and produce the desired result so that an accurate diagnosis is made at the earliest stage to save human lives and to increase their life span.
Citation: M Nisha, T Kannan, K Sivasankari. A semi-supervised deep neuro-fuzzy iterative learning system for automatic segmentation of hippocampus brain MRI[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(12): 7830-7853. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024344
[1] | Minlong Lin, Ke Tang . Selective further learning of hybrid ensemble for class imbalanced increment learning. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017005 |
[2] | Subrata Dasgupta . Disentangling data, information and knowledge. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 377-390. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016016 |
[3] | Qinglei Zhang, Wenying Feng . Detecting Coalition Attacks in Online Advertising: A hybrid data mining approach. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(2): 227-245. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016006 |
[4] | Tieliang Gong, Qian Zhao, Deyu Meng, Zongben Xu . Why Curriculum Learning & Self-paced Learning Work in Big/Noisy Data: A Theoretical Perspective. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(1): 111-127. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016.1.111 |
[5] | Xin Yun, Myung Hwan Chun . The impact of personalized recommendation on purchase intention under the background of big data. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2024, 8(0): 80-108. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2024005 |
[6] | Pankaj Sharma, David Baglee, Jaime Campos, Erkki Jantunen . Big data collection and analysis for manufacturing organisations. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(2): 127-139. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017002 |
[7] | Zhen Mei . Manifold Data Mining Helps Businesses Grow More Effectively. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(2): 275-276. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016009 |
[8] | Ricky Fok, Agnieszka Lasek, Jiye Li, Aijun An . Modeling daily guest count prediction. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 299-308. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016012 |
[9] | M Supriya, AJ Deepa . Machine learning approach on healthcare big data: a review. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2020, 5(1): 58-75. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2020005 |
[10] | Sunmoo Yoon, Maria Patrao, Debbie Schauer, Jose Gutierrez . Prediction Models for Burden of Caregivers Applying Data Mining Techniques. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(3): 209-217. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017014 |
The hippocampus is a small, yet intricate seahorse-shaped tiny structure located deep within the brain's medial temporal lobe. It is a crucial component of the limbic system, which is responsible for regulating emotions, memory, and spatial navigation. This research focuses on automatic hippocampus segmentation from Magnetic Resonance (MR) images of a human head with high accuracy and fewer false positive and false negative rates. This segmentation technique is significantly faster than the manual segmentation methods used in clinics. Unlike the existing approaches such as UNet and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), the proposed algorithm generates an image that is similar to a real image by learning the distribution much more quickly by the semi-supervised iterative learning algorithm of the Deep Neuro-Fuzzy (DNF) technique. To assess its effectiveness, the proposed segmentation technique was evaluated on a large dataset of 18,900 images from Kaggle, and the results were compared with those of existing methods. Based on the analysis of results reported in the experimental section, the proposed scheme in the Semi-Supervised Deep Neuro-Fuzzy Iterative Learning System (SS-DNFIL) achieved a 0.97 Dice coefficient, a 0.93 Jaccard coefficient, a 0.95 sensitivity (true positive rate), a 0.97 specificity (true negative rate), a false positive value of 0.09 and a 0.08 false negative value when compared to existing approaches. Thus, the proposed segmentation techniques outperform the existing techniques and produce the desired result so that an accurate diagnosis is made at the earliest stage to save human lives and to increase their life span.
For a continuous risk outcome
Given fixed effects
In this paper, we assume that the risk outcome
y=Φ(a0+a1x1+⋯+akxk+bs), | (1.1) |
where
Given random effect model (1.1), the expected value
We introduce a family of interval distributions based on variable transformations. Probability densities for these distributions are provided (Proposition 2.1). Parameters of model (1.1) can then be estimated by maximum likelihood approaches assuming an interval distribution. In some cases, these parameters get an analytical solution without the needs for a model fitting (Proposition 4.1). We call a model with a random effect, where parameters are estimated by maximum likelihood assuming an interval distribution, an interval distribution model.
In its simplest form, the interval distribution model
The paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we introduce a family of interval distributions. A measure for tail fatness is defined. In section 3, we show examples of interval distributions and investigate their tail behaviours. We propose in section 4 an algorithm for estimating the parameters in model (1.1).
Interval distributions introduced in this section are defined for a risk outcome over a finite open interval
Let
Let
Φ:D→(c0,c1) | (2.1) |
be a transformation with continuous and positive derivatives
Given a continuous random variable
y=Φ(a+bs), | (2.2) |
where we assume that the range of variable
Proposition 2.1. Given
g(y,a,b)=U1/(bU2) | (2.3) |
G(y,a,b)=F[Φ−1(y)−ab]. | (2.4) |
where
U1=f{[Φ−1(y)−a]/b},U2=ϕ[Φ−1(y)] | (2.5) |
Proof. A proof for the case when
G(y,a,b)=P[Φ(a+bs)≤y] |
=P{s≤[Φ−1(y)−a]/b} |
=F{[Φ−1(y)−a]/b}. |
By chain rule and the relationship
∂Φ−1(y)∂y=1ϕ[Φ−1(y)]. | (2.6) |
Taking the derivative of
∂G(y,a,b)∂y=f{[Φ−1(y)−a]/b}bϕ[Φ−1(y)]=U1bU2. |
One can explore into these interval distributions for their shapes, including skewness and modality. For stress testing purposes, we are more interested in tail risk behaviours for these distributions.
Recall that, for a variable X over (−
For a risk outcome over a finite interval
We say that an interval distribution has a fat right tail if the limit
Given
Recall that, for a Beta distribution with parameters
Next, because the derivative of
z=Φ−1(y) | (2.7) |
Then
Lemma 2.2. Given
(ⅰ)
(ⅱ) If
(ⅲ) If
Proof. The first statement follows from the relationship
[g(y,a,b)(y1−y)β]−1/β=[g(y,a,b)]−1/βy1−y=[g(Φ(z),a,b)]−1/βy1−Φ(z). | (2.8) |
By L’Hospital’s rule and taking the derivatives of the numerator and the denominator of (2.8) with respect to
For tail convexity, we say that the right tail of an interval distribution is convex if
Again, write
h(z,a,b)=log[g(Φ(z),a,b)], | (2.9) |
where
g(y,a,b)=exp[h(z,a,b)]. | (2.10) |
By (2.9), (2.10), using (2.6) and the relationship
g′y=[h′z(z)/ϕ(z)]exp[h(Φ−1(y),a,b)],g″yy=[h″zz(z)ϕ2(z)−h′z(z)ϕ′z(z)ϕ3(z)+h′z(z)h′z(z)ϕ2(z)]exp[h(Φ−1(y),a,b)]. | (2.11) |
The following lemma is useful for checking tail convexity, it follows from (2.11).
Lemma 2.3. Suppose
In this section, we focus on the case where
One can explore into a wide list of densities with different choices for
A.
B.
C.
D.D.
Densities for cases A, B, C, and D are given respectively in (3.3) (section 3.1), (A.1), (A.3), and (A5) (Appendix A). Tail behaviour study is summarized in Propositions 3.3, 3.5, and Remark 3.6. Sketches of density plots are provided in Appendix B for distributions A, B, and C.
Using the notations of section 2, we have
By (2.5), we have
log(U1U2)=−z2+2az−a2+b2z22b2 | (3.1) |
=−(1−b2)(z−a1−b2)2+b21−b2a22b2. | (3.2) |
Therefore, we have
g(y,a,b)=1bexp{−(1−b2)(z−a1−b2)2+b21−b2a22b2}. | (3.3) |
Again, using the notations of section 2, we have
g(y,p,ρ)=√1−ρρexp{−12ρ[√1−ρΦ−1(y)−Φ−1(p)]2+12[Φ−1(y)]2}, | (3.4) |
where
Proposition 3.1. Density (3.3) is equivalent to (3.4) under the relationships:
a=Φ−1(p)√1−ρ and b=√ρ1−ρ. | (3.5) |
Proof. A similar proof can be found in [19]. By (3.4), we have
g(y,p,ρ)=√1−ρρexp{−1−ρ2ρ[Φ−1(y)−Φ−1(p)/√1−ρ]2+12[Φ−1(y)]2} |
=1bexp{−12[Φ−1(y)−ab]2}exp{12[Φ−1(y)]2} |
=U1/(bU2)=g(y,a,b). |
The following relationships are implied by (3.5):
ρ=b21+b2, | (3.6) |
a=Φ−1(p)√1+b2. | (3.7) |
Remark 3.2. The mode of
√1−ρ1−2ρΦ−1(p)=√1+b21−b2Φ−1(p)=a1−b2. |
This means
Proposition 3.3. The following statements hold for
(ⅰ)
(ⅱ)
(ⅲ) If
Proof. For statement (ⅰ), we have
Consider statement (ⅱ). First by (3.3), if
[g(Φ(z),a,b)]−1/β=b1/βexp(−(b2−1)z2+2az−a22βb2) | (3.8) |
By taking the derivative of (3.8) with respect to
−{∂[g(Φ(z),a,b)]−1β/∂z}/ϕ(z)=√2πb1β(b2−1)z+aβb2exp(−(b2−1)z2+2az−a22βb2+z22). | (3.9) |
Thus
{∂[g(Φ(z),a,b)]−1β/∂z}/ϕ(z)=−√2πb1β(b2−1)z+aβb2exp(−(b2−1)z2+2az−a22βb2+z22). | (3.10) |
Thus
For statement (ⅲ), we use Lemma 2.3. By (2.9) and using (3.2), we have
h(z,a,b)=log(U1bU2)=−(1−b2)(z−a1−b2)2+b21−b2a22b2−log(b). |
When
Remark 3.4. Assume
limz⤍+∞−{∂[g(Φ(z),a,b)]−1β/∂z}/ϕ(z) |
is
For these distributions, we again focus on their tail behaviours. A proof for the next proposition can be found in Appendix A.
Proposition 3.5. The following statements hold:
(a) Density
(b) The tailed index of
Remark 3.6. Among distributions A, B, C, and Beta distribution, distribution B gets the highest tailed index of 1, independent of the choices of
In this section, we assume that
First, we consider a simple case, where risk outcome
y=Φ(v+bs), | (4.1) |
where
Given a sample
LL=∑ni=1{logf(zi−vib)−logϕ(zi)−logb}, | (4.2) |
where
Recall that the least squares estimators of
SS=∑ni=1(zi−vi)2 | (4.3) |
has a closed form solution given by the transpose of
X=⌈1x11…xk11x12…xk2…1x1n…xkn⌉,Z=⌈z1z2…zn⌉. |
The next proposition shows there exists an analytical solution for the parameters of model (4.1).
Proposition 4.1. Given a sample
Proof. Dropping off the constant term from (4.2) and noting
LL=−12b2∑ni=1(zi−vi)2−nlogb, | (4.4) |
Hence the maximum likelihood estimates
Next, we consider the general case of model (1.1), where the risk outcome
y=Φ[v+ws], | (4.5) |
where parameter
(a)
(b)
Given a sample
LL=∑ni=1−12[(zi−vi)2/w2i−ui], | (4.6) |
LL=∑ni=1{−(zi−vi)/wi−2log[1+exp[−(zi−vi)/wi]−ui}, | (4.7) |
Recall that a function is log-concave if its logarithm is concave. If a function is concave, a local maximum is a global maximum, and the function is unimodal. This property is useful for searching maximum likelihood estimates.
Proposition 4.2. The functions (4.6) and (4.7) are concave as a function of
Proof. It is well-known that, if
For (4.7), the linear part
In general, parameters
Algorithm 4.3. Follow the steps below to estimate parameters of model (4.5):
(a) Given
(b) Given
(c) Iterate (a) and (b) until a convergence is reached.
With the interval distributions introduced in this paper, models with a random effect can be fitted for a continuous risk outcome by maximum likelihood approaches assuming an interval distribution. These models provide an alternative regression tool to the Beta regression model and fraction response model, and a tool for tail risk assessment as well.
Authors are very grateful to the third reviewer for many constructive comments. The first author is grateful to Biao Wu for many valuable conversations. Thanks also go to Clovis Sukam for his critical reading for the manuscript.
We would like to thank you for following the instructions above very closely in advance. It will definitely save us lot of time and expedite the process of your paper's publication.
The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of Royal Bank of Canada and Scotiabank or any of their affiliates. Please direct any comments to Bill Huajian Yang at h_y02@yahoo.ca.
[1] |
A. Obenaus, C. J. Yong-Hing, K. A. Tong, G. E. Sarty, A reliable method for measurement and normalization of pediatric hippocampal volumes, J. Pediatr. Res., 50 (2001), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-200107000-00022 doi: 10.1203/00006450-200107000-00022
![]() |
[2] |
D. Shen, S. Moffat, S. M. Resnick, C. Davatzikos, Measuring size and shape of the hippocampus in MR images using a deformable shape model, Neuroimage, 15 (2002), 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0987 doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0987
![]() |
[3] |
S. Li, F. Shi, F. Pu, X. Li, T. Jiang, S. Xie, Hippocampal shape analysis of Alzheimer disease based on machine learning methods, J. Neuroradiol., 28 (2007), 1339–1345. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0620 doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A0620
![]() |
[4] |
J. H. Morra, Z. Tu, L. G. Apostolova, A. E. Green, A. W. Toga, P. M. Thompson, Comparison of AdaBoost and support vector machines for detecting Alzheimer's disease through automated hippocampal segmentation, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 29 (2010), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2009.2021941 doi: 10.1109/TMI.2009.2021941
![]() |
[5] |
H. Wang, J. W. Suh, S. R. Das, J. B. Pluta, C. Craige; P. A. Yushkevich, Multi-atlas segmentation with joint label fusion, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 35 (2012), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2012.143 doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2012.143
![]() |
[6] |
M. Kim, G. Wu, D. Shen, Unsupervised deep learning for hippocampus segmentation in 7.0 Tesla MR images, Int. Workshop Mach. Learn. Med. Imaging, (2013), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02267-3_1 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02267-3_1
![]() |
[7] |
J. Kim, M. C. Valdes-Hernandez, N. A. Royle, J. Park, Hippocampal shape modeling based on a progressive template surface deformation and its verification, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 34 (2015), 1242–1261. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2014.2382581 doi: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2382581
![]() |
[8] |
D. Zarpalas, P. Gkontra, P. Daras, N. Maglaveras, Accurate and fully automatic hippocampus segmentation using subject-specific 3D optimal local maps into a hybrid active contour model, IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Health Med., 2 (2016), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/JTEHM.2014.2297953 doi: 10.1109/JTEHM.2014.2297953
![]() |
[9] |
S. Sri Devi, A. Mano, R. Asha, MRI brain tumor segmentation and feature extraction using GLCM, Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6 (2018), 1911–1916. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.1297 doi: 10.22214/ijraset.2018.1297
![]() |
[10] |
V. Dill, P. C. Klein, A. R. Franco, M. S. Pinho, Atlas selection for hippocampus segmentation: Relevance evaluation of three meta-information parameters, J. Comput. Biol. Med., 95 (2018), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.02.005 doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.02.005
![]() |
[11] |
N. Varuna Shree, T. N. R. Kumar, Identification and classification of brain tumor MRI images with feature extraction using DWT and probabilistic neural network, Brain Inform., 5 (2018), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40708-017-0075-5 doi: 10.1007/s40708-017-0075-5
![]() |
[12] |
E. Gibson, W. Li, C. Sudre, L. Fidon, D. I. Shakir, G. Wang, et al., NiftyNet: a deep-learning platform for medical imaging, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., 158 (2018), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.01.025 doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.01.025
![]() |
[13] |
Y. Shao, J. Kim, Y. Gao, Q. Wang, W. Lin, D. Shen, Hippocampal segmentation from longitudinal infant brain MR images via classification-guided boundary regression, IEEE Access, 7 (2019), 33728–33740. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2904143 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2904143
![]() |
[14] |
A. Basher, K. Y. Choi, J. J. Lee, B. Lee, B. C. Kim, K. H. Lee, et al., Hippocampus localization using a two-stage ensemble Hough convolutional neural network, IEEE Access, 7 (2019), 73436–73447. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2920005 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2920005
![]() |
[15] |
S. Liu, Y. Wang, X. Yang, B. Lei, L. Liu, S. X. Li, Deep learning in medical ultrasound analysis: a review, Engineering, 5 (2019), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.020 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.020
![]() |
[16] |
A. Gumaei, M. M. Hassan, M. R. Hassan, A. Alelaiwi, G. Fortino, A hybrid feature extraction method with regularized extreme learning machine for brain tumor classification, IEEE Access, 7 (2019), 36266–36273. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2904145 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2904145
![]() |
[17] |
Y. Shi, K. Cheng, Z. Liu, Hippocampal subfields segmentation in brain MR images using generative adversarial networks, Biomed. Eng. Online, 18 (2019), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-019-0623-8 doi: 10.1186/s12938-019-0623-8
![]() |
[18] |
A. S. Lundervold, A. Lundervold, An overview of deep learning in medical imaging focusing on MRI, J. Med. Phys., 29 (2019), 102–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2018.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2018.11.002
![]() |
[19] | S. M. Nisha, A novel computer-aided diagnosis scheme for breast tumor classification, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., 7 (2020), 718–724. |
[20] |
N. Safavian, S. A. H. Batouli, M. A. Oghabian, An automatic level set method for hippocampus segmentation in MR images, Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. Imaging Vis., 8 (2020), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681163.2019.1706054 doi: 10.1080/21681163.2019.1706054
![]() |
[21] |
M. Liu, F. Li, H. Yan, K. Wang, Y. Ma, L. Shen, et al., A multi-model deep convolutional neural network for automatic hippocampus segmentation and classification in Alzheimer's disease, Neuroimage, 208 (2020), 116459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116459 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116459
![]() |
[22] |
M. K. Singh, K. K. Singh, A review of publicly available automatic brain segmentation methodologies, machine learning models, recent advancements, and their comparison, Ann. Neurosci., 28 (2021), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972753121990 doi: 10.1177/0972753121990
![]() |
[23] |
L. Liu, L. Kuang, Y. Ji, Multimodal MRI brain tumor image segmentation using sparse subspace clustering algorithm, Comput. Math. Methods Med., (2020), 8620403. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8620403 doi: 10.1155/2020/8620403
![]() |
[24] |
D. Carmo, B. Silva, C. Yasuda, L. Rittner, R. Lotufo, Hippocampus segmentation on epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease studies with multiple convolutional neural networks, Heliyon, 7 (2021), e06226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06226 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06226
![]() |
[25] |
R. De Feo, E. Hämäläinen, E. Manninen, R. Immonen, J. M. Valverde, X. E. Ndode-Ekane, et al., Convolutional neural networks enable robust automatic segmentation of the rat hippocampus in mri after traumatic brain injury, Front. Neurol., 13 (2022), 820267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.820267 doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.820267
![]() |
[26] |
M. Nisha, T. Kannan, K. Sivasankari, M. Sabrigiriraj, Automatic hippocampus segmentation model for MRI of human head through semi-supervised generative adversarial networks, Neuroquantology, 20 (2022), 5222–5232. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2022.20.6.NQ22528 doi: 10.14704/nq.2022.20.6.NQ22528
![]() |
[27] |
K. S. Chuang, H. L. Tzeng, S. Chen, J. Wu, T. J. Chen, Fuzzy c-means clustering with spatial information for image segmentation, Comput. Med. Imaging Graph., 30 (2006), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2005.10.001 doi: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2005.10.001
![]() |
[28] |
B. N. Li, C. K. Chui, S. Chang, S. H. Ong, Integrating spatial fuzzy clustering with level set methods for automated medical image segmentation, Comput. Biol. Med., 41 (2011), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2010.10.007 doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2010.10.007
![]() |
[29] |
C. Militello, L. Rundo, M. Dimarco, A. Orlando, V. Conti, R. Woitek, et al., Semi-automated and interactive segmentation of contrast-enhancing masses on breast DCE-MRI using spatial fuzzy clustering, Biomed. Signal Process. Control, 71 (2022), 103113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2021.103113 doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2021.103113
![]() |
[30] | Z. Zhou, M. M. R. Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, J. Liang, U-Net++: A nested U-Net architecture for medical image segmentation, in Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support, Springer, (2018), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00889-5_1 |
[31] | K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., (2016), 770–778. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 |
[32] | G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. Van Der Maaten., K. Q. Weinberger, Densely connected convolutional networks, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., (2017), 4700–4708. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.243 |
[33] | Z. Liu, Y. Lin, Y. Cao, H. Hu, Y. Wei, Z. Zhang, et al., Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows, in Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., (2021), 10012–10022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00986 |
[34] | J. Hu, L. Shen, G. Sun, Squeeze-and-Excitation networks, in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., (2018), 7132–7141. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1709.01507 |
[35] |
J. Wang, K. Sun, T. Cheng, B. Jiang, C. Deng, Y. Zhao, et al., Deep high-resolution representation learning for visual recognition, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 43 (2020), 3349–3364. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2020.2983686 doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2020.2983686
![]() |
[36] |
Z. Szentimrey, A. Al‐Hayali, S. de Ribaupierre, A. Fenster, E. Ukwatta, Semi‐supervised learning framework with shape encoding for neonatal ventricular segmentation from 3D ultrasound, Med. Phys., 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.17242 doi: 10.1002/mp.17242
![]() |
[37] | Z. Wang, C. Ma, Dual-contrastive dual-consistency dual-transformer: A semi-supervised approach to medical image segmentation, in Proc. 2023 IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. Workshops, (2023), 870–879. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCVW60793.2023.00094 |
[38] |
L. Huang, S. Ruan, T. Denœux, Semi-supervised multiple evidence fusion for brain tumor segmentation, Neurocomputing, 535 (2023), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2023.02.047 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2023.02.047
![]() |
[39] | Z. Wang, I. Voiculescu, Exigent examiner and mean teacher: An advanced 3d cnn-based semi-supervised brain tumor segmentation framework, in Med. Image Learn. Limited Noisy Data: 2nd Int. Workshop MILLanD 2023, (2023), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44917-8_17 |
[40] |
G. Qu, B. Lu, J. Shi, Z. Wang, Y. Yuan, Y. Xia, et al., Motion-artifact-augmented pseudo-label network for semi-supervised brain tumor segmentation, Phys. Med. Biol., 69 (2024), 5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ad2634 doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad2634
![]() |
[41] |
R. A. Hazarika, A. K. Maji, R. Syiem, S. N. Sur, D. Kandar, Hippocampus segmentation using U-net convolutional network from brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), J. Digit. Imaging, 35 (2022), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-022-00613-y doi: 10.1007/s10278-022-00613-y
![]() |
[42] |
D. Ataloglou, A. Dimou, D. Zarpalas, P. Daras, Fast and precise hippocampus segmentation through deep convolutional neural network ensembles and transfer learning, Neuroinformatics, 17 (2019), 563–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-019-09417-y doi: 10.1007/s12021-019-09417-y
![]() |
[43] |
M. Nisha, T. Kannan, K. Sivasankari, Deep integration model: A robust autonomous segmentation technique for hippocampus in MRI images of human head, Int. J. Health Sci., 6 (2022), 13745–13758. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.8756 doi: 10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.8756
![]() |
[44] | N. Allinson, H. Yin, L. Allinson, J. Slack, Advances in Self-Organising Maps, Springer, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0715-6. |
[45] | S. N. Sivanandam, S. Sumathi, S. N. Deepa, Applications of Fuzzy Logic: Introduction to Fuzzy Logic Using MATLAB, Springer, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-35781-0_8 |
[46] |
V. Conti, C. Militello, L. Rundo, S. Vitabile, A novel bio-inspired approach for high-performance management in service-oriented networks, IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput., 9 (2021), 1709–1722. https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2020.3018312 doi: 10.1109/TETC.2020.3018312
![]() |