skip to main content
research-article

Scribble-Supervised Meibomian Glands Segmentation in Infrared Images

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 March 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Infrared imaging is currently the most effective clinical method to evaluate the morphology of the meibomian glands (MGs) in patients. As an important indicator for monitoring the development of MG dysfunction, it is necessary to accurately measure gland-drop and gland morphology. Although there are existing methods for automatic segmentation of MGs using deep learning frameworks, they require fully annotated ground-truth labels for training, which is time-consuming and laborious. In this article, we proposed a new scribble-supervised deep learning framework for segmenting the MGs, which only requires easily attainable scribble annotations for training. To cope with the shortage of supervision and regularize the network, a transformation consistent strategy is incorporated, which requires the prediction to follow the same transformation if a transform is performed on an input image of the network. The proposed segmentation method consists of two stages. In the first stage, a U-Net network is used to obtain the meibomian region segmentation map. In the second stage, we concentrate on segmenting glands in the meibomian region. We utilize the gradient prior information of the original image at the decoder part of the segmentation network, which can coarsely locate the target contour. We automatically generate reliable labels using the exponential moving average of the predictions during training and filter out the unreliable pseudo-label by uncertainty threshold. Experimental results on a local MG dataset and two other public medical image datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed segmentation framework.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Driver P. J. and Lemp M. A.. 1996. Meibomian gland dysfunction. 40, 5 (1996), 343367.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Ko Tony H., Fujimoto James G., Duker Jay S., Paunescu Lelia A., Drexler Wolfgang, Baumal Caroline R., Puliafito Carmen A., Reichel Elias, Rogers Adam H., and Schuman Joel S.. 2005. Comparison of ultrahigh- and standard-resolution optical coherence tomography for imaging macular pathology. Ophthalmology 111, 11 (2005), 20332043.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Hassanzadeh S., Varmaghani M., Zarei-Ghanavati S., Shandiz J. Heravian, and Azimi Khorasani A.. 2021. Global prevalence of meibomian gland dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ocular Immunology and Inflammation 29, 1 (2021), 6675.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Erich K., Nadja K., Thomas M., Hiroto O., and Sullivan D. A.. 2011. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: Report of the subcommittee on anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology of the meibomian gland. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 52, 4 (2011), 1938–78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] X. Liu, Q. Yuan, Y. Gao, K. He, S. Wang, X. Tang, J. Tang, and D. Shen. 2022. Weakly supervised segmentation of COVID19 infection with scribble annotation on CT images. Pattern Recognition 122 (2022), 108341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] He J., Zhu Q., Zhang K., Yu P., and Tang J.. 2021. An evolvable adversarial network with gradient penalty for COVID-19 infection segmentation. Applied Soft Computing 113 (2021), 107947.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Marcet M. M., Shtein R. M., Bradley E. A., Deng S. X., Meyer D. R., Bilyk J. R., Yen M. T., Lee W. B., and Mawn L. A.. 2015. Safety and efficacy of lacrimal drainage system plugs for dry eye syndrome a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 122, 8 (2015), 16811687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Liu Xiaoming, Fu Tianyu, Pan Zhifang, Liu Dong, Hu Wei, Liu Jun, and Zhang Kai. 2019. Automated layer segmentation of retinal optical coherence tomography images using a deep feature enhanced structured random forests classifier. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 23, 4 (2019), 14041416.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Arita R., Itoh K., Inoue K., and Amano S.. 2008. Noncontact Infrared meibography to document age-related changes of the meibomian glands in a normal population. Ophthalmology 115, 5 (2008), 911915.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Wong Stephanie, Srinivasan Sruthi, Murphy Paul J., and Jones Lyndon. 2019. Comparison of meibomian gland dropout using two infrared imaging devices. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 42, 3 (2019), 311317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Foulks G. N. and Bron A. J.. 2003. Meibomian gland dysfunction: A clinical scheme for description, diagnosis, classification, and grading. Ocular Surface 1, 3 (2003), 107126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Koh Y. W., Celik T., Lee H. K., Petznick A., and Tong L. H.. 2012. Detection of meibomian glands and classification of meibography images. Journal of Biomedical Optics 17, 8 (2012), 086008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Arita R., Suehiro J., Haraguchi T., Shirakawa R., Tokoro H., and Amano S.. 2014. Objective image analysis of the meibomian gland area. British Journal of Ophthalmology 98, 6 (2014), 746755.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Liu X., Wang S., Zhang Y., Liu D., and Hu W.. 2021. Automatic fluid segmentation in retinal optical coherence tomography images using attention based deep learning. Neurocomputing 452 (2021), 576591.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Liu X., Yu A., Wei X., Pan Z., and Tang J.. 2020. Multimodal MR image synthesis using gradient prior and adversarial learning. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 14, 6 (2020), 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Prabhu S. M., Chakiat A., Shashank S., Vunnava K. P., and Shetty R.. 2020. Deep learning segmentation and quantification of Meibomian glands. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 57 (2020), 101776.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Lee H. and Jeong W. K.. 2020. Scribble2Label: Scribble-supervised cell segmentation via self-generating pseudo-labels with consistency. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 1423.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Wang Y., Zhang J., Kan M., Shan S., and Chen X.. 2020. Self-supervised equivariant attention mechanism for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’20).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola. 2017. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'17).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] D. T. Nguyen, C. K. Mummadi, T. Ngo, T. Nguyen, L. Beggel, and T. Brox. 2020. SELF: Learning to Filter Noisy Labels with Self-Ensembling. In 2020 International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Ronneberger O., Fischer P., and Brox T.. 2015. U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 234241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Li X., Yu L., Chen H., Fu C. W., and Heng P. A.. 2021. Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 32, 2 (2021), 523534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Liu X., Zhu T., Zhai L., and Liu J.. 2017. Mass classification of benign and malignant with a new twin support vector machine joint l2,1-norm. International Journal of Machine Learning & Cybernetics 10, 5 (2017), 117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Badrinarayanan V., Kendall A., and Cipolla R.. 2017. Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 39, 12 (2017), 24812495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Liu X., Guo Z., Cao J., and Tang J.. 2021. MDC-Net: A new convolutional neural network for nucleus segmentation in histopathology images with distance maps and contour information. Computers in Biology and Medicine 135 (2021), 104543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] X. Liu, J. Cao, S. Wang, Y. Zhang, and M. Wang. 2021. Confidence-guided topology-preserving layer segmentation for optical coherence tomography images with focus-column module. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 70 (2021), 5005612.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Yang Z., Xu P., Yang Y., and Bao B.-K.. 2021. A densely connected network based on U-Net for medical image segmentation. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications 17, 3 (2021), 114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Schlegl T., Seebck P., Waldstein S. M., Langs G., and Schmidt-Erfurth U.. 2019. f-AnoGAN: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks. Medical Image Analysis 54 (2019), 3044.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Lin F., Zhou W., Deng J., Li B., Lu Y., and Li H.. 2021. Residual refinement network with attribute guidance for precise saliency detection. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications 17, 3 (2021), 119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Wang J., Yeh T. N., Chakraborty R., Yu S. X., and Lin M. C.. 2019. A deep learning approach for meibomian gland atrophy evaluation in meibography images. Translational Vision Science Technology 8, 6 (2019), 37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Zhao H., Shi J., Qi X., Wang X., and Jia J.. 2017. Pyramid scene parsing network. In IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 28812890.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Khan Z. K., Umar A. I., Shirazi S. H., Rasheed A., and Gul S.. 2021. Image based analysis of meibomian gland dysfunction using conditional generative adversarial neural network. BMJ Open Ophthalmology 6, 1 (2021), e000436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Roy Abhijit Guha, Conjeti Sailesh, Karri Sri Phani Krishna, Sheet Debdoot, Katouzian Amin, Wachinger Christian, and Navab Nassir. 2017. ReLayNet: Retinal layer and fluid segmentation of macular optical coherence tomography using fully convolutional networks. Biomedical Optics Express 8, 8 (2017), 3627.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Devalla S. K., Renukanand P. K., Sreedhar B. K., Subramanian G., Zhang L., Perera S., Mari J. M., Chin K. S., Tun T. A., Strouthidis N. G., Aung T., Thiéry A. H., and Girard M. J. A.. 2018. DRUNET: A dilated-residual U-Net deep learning network to segment optic nerve head tissues in optical coherence tomography images. Biomedical Optics Express 9, 7 (2018), 32443265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Pinheiro P. O. and Collobert R.. 2015. From image-level to pixel-level labeling with convolutional networks. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’15).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Saleh F., Aliakbarian M. S., Salzmann M., Petersson L., Gould S., and Alvarez J. M.. 2016. Built-in foreground/ background prior for weakly-supervised semantic segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 413432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Lee S., Lee M., Lee J., and Shim H.. 2021. Railroad is not a train: Saliency as pseudo-pixel supervision for weakly supervised semantic segmentation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 54955505.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Khoreva A., Benenson R., Hosang J., Hein M., and Schiele B.. 2016. Simple does It: Weakly supervised instance and semantic segmentation. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. [39] Chen X., Yuan Y., Zeng G., and Wang J.. 2021. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 26132622.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Bearman A., Russakovsky O., Ferrari V., and Li F. F.. 2016. What's the point: Semantic segmentation with point supervision. In European Conference on Computer Vision.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Laradji I. H., Rostamzadeh N., Pinheiro P. O., Vazquez D., and Schmidt M.. 2018. Where are the blobs: Counting by localization with point supervision. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV’18). 547562.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. [42] Di L., Dai J., Jia J., He K., and Jian S.. 2016. ScribbleSup: Scribble-supervised convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Wang B., Qi G., Tang S., Zhang T., and Zhang Y.. 2019. Boundary perception guidance: A scribble-supervised semantic segmentation approach. In 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Harada Daisuke, Bise Ryoma, Tokunaga Hiroki, Ohyama Wataru, Oka Sanae, Fujimori Toshihiko, and Uchida Seiichi. 2019. Scribbles for metric learning in histological image segmentation. In 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC’19). IEEE, 10261030.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Sahasrabudhe Mihir, Christodoulidis Stergios, Salgado Roberto, Michiels Stefan, Loi Sherene, André Fabrice, Paragios Nikos, and Vakalopoulou Maria. 2020. Self-supervised nuclei segmentation in histopathological images using attention. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 393402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. [46] Yu L., Wang S., Li X., Fu C.-W., and Heng P.-A.. 2019. Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3D left atrium segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 605613.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Yushkevich P. A., Gao Y., and Gerig G.. 2016. ITK-SNAP: An interactive tool for semi-automatic segmentation of multi-modality biomedical images. In Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Pflugfelder S. C., Tseng S. C., Sanabria O., Kell H., Garcia C. G., Felix C., Feuer W., and Reis B. L.. 1998. Evaluation of subjective assessments and objective diagnostic tests for diagnosing tear-film disorders known to cause ocular irritation. Cornea, 17, 1 (1998), 3856.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Nichols J. J., Berntsen D. A., Mitchell G. L., and Nichols K. K.. 2005. An assessment of grading scales for meibography images. Cornea 24, 4 (2005), 382388.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [50] Pult H. and Riede-Pult B.. 2012. Comparison of subjective grading and objective assessment in meibography. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye: The Journal of the British Contact Lens Association 36, 1 (2012), 2227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. [51] Ljosa V., Sokolnicki K. L., and Carpenter A. E.. 2012. Annotated high-throughput microscopy image sets for validation. Nature Methods 9, 7 (2012), 637637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. [52] Villani E., Marelli L., Dellavalle A., Serafino M., and Nucci P.. 2020. Latest evidences on meibomian gland dysfunction diagnosis and management. The Ocular Surface 18, 4 (2020), 871892.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. [53] D. Kingma and J. Ba, 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'15).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. [54] Tang M., Perazzi F., Djelouah A., Ben Ayed I., Schroers C., and Boykov Y.. 2018. On regularized losses for weakly-supervised CNN segmentation. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV’18). 507522.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. [55] Zhang J., Yu X., Li A., Song P., and Dai Y.. 2020. Weakly-supervised salient object detection via scribble annotations. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’20).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. [56] Kumar N., Verma R., Sharma S., Bhargava S., Vahadane A., and Sethi A.. 2017. A dataset and a technique for generalized nuclear segmentation for computational pathology. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 36, 7 (2017), 15501560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Scribble-Supervised Meibomian Glands Segmentation in Infrared Images

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
      ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications  Volume 18, Issue 3
      August 2022
      478 pages
      ISSN:1551-6857
      EISSN:1551-6865
      DOI:10.1145/3505208
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 March 2022
      • Revised: 1 November 2021
      • Accepted: 1 November 2021
      • Received: 1 August 2021
      Published in tomm Volume 18, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format