Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ruchaneewan Susomboon

dblp:09/6469 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Medical and health informatics › medical imaging
medical image analysis
0.112006
Automatic Single-Organ Segmentation in Computed Tomography Images · ICDM 2006
Medical and health informatics › medical imaging › medical image analysis › medical image segmentation
organ segmentation
0.112006
Automatic Single-Organ Segmentation in Computed Tomography Images · ICDM 2006
Image and video processing
image segmentation
0.012006
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Comparison and Evaluation of Methods for Liver Segmentation From CT Datasets
abstract
This 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 Imaging47
2006 Automatic Single-Organ Segmentation in Computed Tomography Images
abstract
In 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
ICDM1