↓ Skip to main content

Addressing multi-label imbalance problem of surgical tool detection using CNN

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Addressing multi-label imbalance problem of surgical tool detection using CNN
Published in
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11548-017-1565-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manish Sahu, Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Angelika Szengel, Stefan Zachow

Abstract

A fully automated surgical tool detection framework is proposed for endoscopic video streams. State-of-the-art surgical tool detection methods rely on supervised one-vs-all or multi-class classification techniques, completely ignoring the co-occurrence relationship of the tools and the associated class imbalance. In this paper, we formulate tool detection as a multi-label classification task where tool co-occurrences are treated as separate classes. In addition, imbalance on tool co-occurrences is analyzed and stratification techniques are employed to address the imbalance during convolutional neural network (CNN) training. Moreover, temporal smoothing is introduced as an online post-processing step to enhance runtime prediction. Quantitative analysis is performed on the M2CAI16 tool detection dataset to highlight the importance of stratification, temporal smoothing and the overall framework for tool detection. The analysis on tool imbalance, backed by the empirical results, indicates the need and superiority of the proposed framework over state-of-the-art techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 17 31%
Engineering 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#19,087,885
of 23,653,133 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
#645
of 883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,414
of 309,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,653,133 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.