This paper describes an evaluation framework that allows a standardized and quantitative comparison of IVUS lumen and media segmentation algorithms. This framework has been introduced at the MICCAI 2011 Computing and Visualization for (Intra)Vascular Imaging (CVII) workshop, comparing the results of eight teams that participated. We describe the available data-base comprising of multi-center, multi-vendor and multi-frequency IVUS datasets, their acquisition, the creation of the reference standard and the evaluation measures. The approaches address segmentation of the lumen, the media, or both borders; semi- or fully-automatic operation; and 2-D vs. 3-D methodology. Three performance measures for quantitative analysis have been proposed. The results of the evaluation indicate that segmentation of the vessel lumen and media is possible with an accuracy that is comparable to manual annotation when semi-automatic methods are used, as well as encouraging results can be obtained also in case of fully-automatic segmentation. The analysis performed in this paper also highlights the challenges in IVUS segmentation that remains to be solved.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 January 2026.
All research outputs
#10,602,391
of 34,559,526 outputs
Outputs from Computerized Medical Imaging & Graphics
#333
of 954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,729
of 241,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Computerized Medical Imaging & Graphics
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,559,526 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 954 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 241,731 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.
