Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ruchaneewan Susomboon
dblp:09/6469
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Medical and health informatics · 100% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Image and video processing · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Medical and health informatics › medical imaging
medical image analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Automatic Single-Organ Segmentation in Computed Tomography Images · ICDM 2006 |
Medical and health informatics › medical imaging › medical image analysis › medical image segmentation
organ segmentation |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Automatic Single-Organ Segmentation in Computed Tomography Images · ICDM 2006 |
Image and video processing
image segmentation |
0.0 | 1 | 2006 | Automatic Single-Organ Segmentation in Computed Tomography Images · ICDM 2006 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
split-and-merge · 0.1region growing · 0.1pixel-based texture features · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | Comparison and Evaluation of Methods for Liver Segmentation From CT DatasetsabstractThis paper presents a comparison study between 10 automatic and six interactive methods for liver segmentation from contrast-enhanced CT images. It is based on results from the "MICCAI 2007 Grand Challenge" workshop, where 16 teams evaluated their algorithms on a common database. A collection of 20 clinical images with reference segmentations was provided to train and tune algorithms in advance. Participants were also allowed to use additional proprietary training data for that purpose. All teams then had to apply their methods to 10 test datasets and submit the obtained results. Employed algorithms include statistical shape models, atlas registration, level-sets, graph-cuts and rule-based systems. All results were compared to reference segmentations five error measures that highlight different aspects of segmentation accuracy. All measures were combined according to a specific scoring system relating the obtained values to human expert variability. In general, interactive methods reached higher average scores than automatic approaches and featured a better consistency of segmentation quality. However, the best automatic methods (mainly based on statistical shape models with some additional free deformation) could compete well on the majority of test images. The study provides an insight in performance of different segmentation approaches under real-world conditions and highlights achievements and limitations of current image analysis techniques. Tobias Heimann, Bram van Ginneken, Martin Styner, Yulia Arzhaeva, Volker Aurich, Christian Bauer 0001, Andreas Beck 0001, Christoph Becker 0002, Reinhard Beichel, György Bekes, Fernando Bello, Gerd Karl Binnig, Horst Bischof, Alexander Bornik, Peter Cashman, Ying Chi, Andrés Cordova, Benoit M. Dawant, Márta Fidrich, Jacob D. Furst, Daisuke Furukawa, Lars Grenacher, Joachim Hornegger, Dagmar Kainmüller, Richard Kitney, Hidefumi Kobatake, Hans Lamecker, Thomas Lange, Brian Lennon, Rui Li 0012, Senhu Li, Hans-Peter Meinzer, Gábor Németh, Daniela Raicu, Anne-Mareike Rau, Eva M. van Rikxoort, Mikaël Rousson, László Ruskó, Kinda Anna Saddi, Günter Schmidt 0001, Dieter Seghers, Akinobu Shimizu, Pieter Slagmolen, Erich Sorantin, Grzegorz Soza, Ruchaneewan Susomboon, Jonathan M. Waite, Andreas Wimmer, Ivo Wolf |
IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging | 47 |
| 2006 | Automatic Single-Organ Segmentation in Computed Tomography ImagesabstractIn this paper, we propose a hybrid approach for automatic single-organ segmentation in computed tomography (CT) data. The approach consists of three stages: first, a probability image of the organ of interest is obtained by applying a binary classification model obtained using pixel-based texture features; second, an adaptive split-and-merge segmentation algorithm is applied on the organ probability image to remove the noise introduced by the misclassified pixels; and third, the segmented organ's boundaries from the previous stage are iteratively refined using a region growing algorithm. While we applied our approach for liver segmentation in 2-D CT images, a challenging and important task in many medical applications, the proposed approach can be applied for the segmentation of any other organ in CT images. Moreover, the proposed approach can be extended to perform automatic multiple organ segmentation and to build context-sensitive reporting tools for computer-aided diagnosis applications. Ruchaneewan Susomboon, Daniela Raicu, Jacob D. Furst, David S. Channin |
ICDM | 1 |