↓ Skip to main content

Performance Evaluation of State-of-the-Art Local Feature Detectors and Descriptors in the Context of Longitudinal Registration of Retinal Images

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Performance Evaluation of State-of-the-Art Local Feature Detectors and Descriptors in the Context of Longitudinal Registration of Retinal Images
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10916-018-0911-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sajib K. Saha, Di Xiao, Shaun Frost, Yogesan Kanagasingam

Abstract

In this paper we systematically evaluate the performance of several state-of-the-art local feature detectors and descriptors in the context of longitudinal registration of retinal images. Longitudinal (temporal) registration facilitates to track the changes in the retina that has happened over time. A wide number of local feature detectors and descriptors exist and many of them have already applied for retinal image registration, however, no comparative evaluation has been made so far to analyse their respective performance. In this manuscript we evaluate the performance of the widely known and commonly used detectors such as Harris, SIFT, SURF, BRISK, and bifurcation and cross-over points. As of descriptors SIFT, SURF, ALOHA, BRIEF, BRISK and PIIFD are used. Longitudinal retinal image datasets containing a total of 244 images are used for the experiment. The evaluation reveals some potential findings including more robustness of SURF and SIFT keypoints than the commonly used bifurcation and cross-over points, when detected on the vessels. SIFT keypoints can be detected with a reliability of 59% for without pathology images and 45% for with pathology images. For SURF keypoints these values are respectively 58% and 47%. ALOHA descriptor is best suited to describe SURF keypoints, which ensures an overall matching accuracy, distinguishability of 83%, 93% and 78%, 83% for without pathology and with pathology images respectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Lecturer 1 5%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 58%
Engineering 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 August 2020.
All research outputs
#6,871,772
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#248
of 1,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,654
of 330,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,163 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 330,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.