CHAOS Challenge - combined (CT-MR) healthy abdominal organ segmentation.

Segmentation of abdominal organs has been a comprehensive, yet unresolved, research field for many years. In the last decade, intensive developments in deep learning (DL) introduced new state-of-the-art segmentation systems. Despite outperforming the overall accuracy of existing systems, the effects of DL model properties and parameters on the performance are hard to interpret. This makes comparative analysis a necessary tool towards interpretable studies and systems. Moreover, the performance of DL for emerging learning approaches such as cross-modality and multi-modal semantic segmentation tasks has been rarely discussed. In order to expand the knowledge on these topics, the CHAOS - Combined (CT-MR) Healthy Abdominal Organ Segmentation challenge was organized in conjunction with the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 2019, in Venice, Italy. Abdominal organ segmentation from routine acquisitions plays an important role in several clinical applications, such as pre-surgical planning or morphological and volumetric follow-ups for various diseases. These applications require a certain level of performance on a diverse set of metrics such as maximum symmetric surface distance (MSSD) to determine surgical error-margin or overlap errors for tracking size and shape differences. Previous abdomen related challenges are mainly focused on tumor/lesion detection and/or classification with a single modality. Conversely, CHAOS provides both abdominal CT and MR data from healthy subjects for single and multiple abdominal organ segmentation. Five different but complementary tasks were designed to analyze the capabilities of participating approaches from multiple perspectives. The results were investigated thoroughly, compared with manual annotations and interactive methods. The analysis shows that the performance of DL models for single modality (CT / MR) can show reliable volumetric analysis performance (DICE: 0.98 ± 0.00 / 0.95 ± 0.01), but the best MSSD performance remains limited (21.89 ± 13.94 / 20.85 ± 10.63 mm). The performances of participating models decrease dramatically for cross-modality tasks both for the liver (DICE: 0.88 ± 0.15 MSSD: 36.33 ± 21.97 mm). Despite contrary examples on different applications, multi-tasking DL models designed to segment all organs are observed to perform worse compared to organ-specific ones (performance drop around 5%). Nevertheless, some of the successful models show better performance with their multi-organ versions. We conclude that the exploration of those pros and cons in both single vs multi-organ and cross-modality segmentations is poised to have an impact on further research for developing effective algorithms that would support real-world clinical applications. Finally, having more than 1500 participants and receiving more than 550 submissions, another important contribution of this study is the analysis on shortcomings of challenge organizations such as the effects of multiple submissions and peeking phenomenon.

Comparison of semi-automatic and deep learning-based automatic methods for liver segmentation in living liver transplant donors.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and repeatability of emerging machine learning based (i.e. deep) automatic segmentation algorithms with those of well-established semi-automatic (interactive) methods for determining liver volume in living liver transplant donors at computerized tomography (CT) imaging. METHODS: A total of 12 (6 semi-, 6 full-automatic) methods are evaluated. The semi-automatic segmentation algorithms are based on both traditional iterative models including watershed, fast marching, region growing, active contours and modern techniques including robust statistical segmenter and super-pixels. These methods entail some sort of interaction mechanism such as placing initialization seeds on images or determining a parameter range. The automatic methods are based on deep learning and they include three framework templates (DeepMedic, NiftyNet and U-Net) the first two of which are applied with default parameter sets and the last two involve adapted novel model designs. For 20 living donors (6 training and 12 test datasets), a group of imaging scientists and radiologists created ground truths by performing manual segmentations on contrast material-enhanced CT images. Each segmentation is evaluated using five metrics (i.e. volume overlap and relative volume errors, average/RMS/maximum symmetrical surface distances). The results are mapped to a scoring system and a final grade is calculated by taking their average. Accuracy and repeatability were evaluated using slice by slice comparisons and volumetric analysis. Diversity and complementarity are observed through heatmaps. Majority voting and Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) algorithms are utilized to obtain the fusion of the individual results. RESULTS: The top four methods are determined to be automatic deep models having 79.63, 79.46 and 77.15 and 74.50 scores. Intra-user score is determined as 95.14. Overall, deep automatic segmentation outperformed interactive techniques on all metrics. The mean volume of liver of ground truth is found to be 1409.93 mL ± 271.28 mL, while it is calculated as 1342.21 mL ± 231.24 mL using automatic and 1201.26 mL ± 258.13 mL using interactive methods, showing higher accuracy and less variation on behalf of automatic methods. The qualitative analysis of segmentation results showed significant diversity and complementarity enabling the idea of using ensembles to obtain superior results. The fusion of automatic methods reached 83.87 with majority voting and 86.20 using STAPLE that are only slightly less than fusion of all methods that achieved 86.70 (majority voting) and 88.74 (STAPLE). CONCLUSION: Use of the new deep learning based automatic segmentation algorithms substantially increases the accuracy and repeatability for segmentation and volumetric measurements of liver. Fusion of automatic methods based on ensemble approaches exhibits best results almost without any additional time cost due to potential parallel execution of multiple models.