Five Pitfalls When Assessing Synthetic Medical Images with Reference Metrics
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2024
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866910663750713344 |
|---|---|
| author | Dohmen, Melanie Truong, Tuan Baltruschat, Ivo M. Lenga, Matthias |
| author_facet | Dohmen, Melanie Truong, Tuan Baltruschat, Ivo M. Lenga, Matthias |
| contents | Reference metrics have been developed to objectively and quantitatively compare two images. Especially for evaluating the quality of reconstructed or compressed images, these metrics have shown very useful. Extensive tests of such metrics on benchmarks of artificially distorted natural images have revealed which metric best correlate with human perception of quality. Direct transfer of these metrics to the evaluation of generative models in medical imaging, however, can easily lead to pitfalls, because assumptions about image content, image data format and image interpretation are often very different. Also, the correlation of reference metrics and human perception of quality can vary strongly for different kinds of distortions and commonly used metrics, such as SSIM, PSNR and MAE are not the best choice for all situations. We selected five pitfalls that showcase unexpected and probably undesired reference metric scores and discuss strategies to avoid them. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2408_06075 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Five Pitfalls When Assessing Synthetic Medical Images with Reference Metrics Dohmen, Melanie Truong, Tuan Baltruschat, Ivo M. Lenga, Matthias Image and Video Processing Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Reference metrics have been developed to objectively and quantitatively compare two images. Especially for evaluating the quality of reconstructed or compressed images, these metrics have shown very useful. Extensive tests of such metrics on benchmarks of artificially distorted natural images have revealed which metric best correlate with human perception of quality. Direct transfer of these metrics to the evaluation of generative models in medical imaging, however, can easily lead to pitfalls, because assumptions about image content, image data format and image interpretation are often very different. Also, the correlation of reference metrics and human perception of quality can vary strongly for different kinds of distortions and commonly used metrics, such as SSIM, PSNR and MAE are not the best choice for all situations. We selected five pitfalls that showcase unexpected and probably undesired reference metric scores and discuss strategies to avoid them. |
| title | Five Pitfalls When Assessing Synthetic Medical Images with Reference Metrics |
| topic | Image and Video Processing Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06075 |