Benchmarking of algorithms for 3D tissue reconstruction
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › Scientific › peer-review
Standard
Benchmarking of algorithms for 3D tissue reconstruction. / Kartasalo, Kimmo; Latonen, Leena; Visakorpi, Tapio; Nykter, Matti; Ruusuvuori, Pekka.
2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2016. p. 2360-2364.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › Scientific › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex - Download
}
RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download
TY - GEN
T1 - Benchmarking of algorithms for 3D tissue reconstruction
AU - Kartasalo, Kimmo
AU - Latonen, Leena
AU - Visakorpi, Tapio
AU - Nykter, Matti
AU - Ruusuvuori, Pekka
PY - 2016/8/19
Y1 - 2016/8/19
N2 - Studying tissue structure in 3D is beneficial in many applications. Reconstructing the structure based on histological sections has the advantages of high resolution and compatibility with conventional staining and interpretation techniques. However, obtaining an accurate 3D reconstruction based on a sequence of 2D sections is a difficult task. Evaluating the accuracy of such reconstructions is also challenging and it is often performed based only on visual inspections or a single indirect numerical measure. Here, we present a benchmarking framework composed of a panel of complementary metrics for assessing the quality of 3D reconstructions. We then apply the framework to evaluate the performance of several popular image registration algorithms in this context.
AB - Studying tissue structure in 3D is beneficial in many applications. Reconstructing the structure based on histological sections has the advantages of high resolution and compatibility with conventional staining and interpretation techniques. However, obtaining an accurate 3D reconstruction based on a sequence of 2D sections is a difficult task. Evaluating the accuracy of such reconstructions is also challenging and it is often performed based only on visual inspections or a single indirect numerical measure. Here, we present a benchmarking framework composed of a panel of complementary metrics for assessing the quality of 3D reconstructions. We then apply the framework to evaluate the performance of several popular image registration algorithms in this context.
KW - Benchmark testing
KW - Image reconstruction
KW - Image registration
KW - Indexes
KW - Measurement
KW - Standards
KW - Three-dimensional displays
KW - 3D reconstruction
KW - benchmark
KW - digital pathology
KW - histology
U2 - 10.1109/ICIP.2016.7532781
DO - 10.1109/ICIP.2016.7532781
M3 - Conference contribution
SP - 2360
EP - 2364
BT - 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)
PB - IEEE
ER -