Segment anything model for medical image analysis: An experimental study

被引:200
作者
Mazurowski, Maciej A. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Dong, Haoyu [2 ,5 ]
Gu, Hanxue [2 ]
Yang, Jichen [2 ]
Konz, Nicholas [2 ]
Zhang, Yixin [2 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Dept Radiol, Durham, NC 27708 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Dept Elect & Comp Engn, Durham, NC 27708 USA
[3] Duke Univ, Dept Comp Sci, Durham, NC 27708 USA
[4] Duke Univ, Dept Biostat & Bioinformat, Durham, NC 27708 USA
[5] Duke Univ, Hock Plaza,2424 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC 27704 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Segmentation; Foundation models; Deep learning;
D O I
10.1016/j.media.2023.102918
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Training segmentation models for medical images continues to be challenging due to the limited availability of data annotations. Segment Anything Model (SAM) is a foundation model trained on over 1 billion annotations, predominantly for natural images, that is intended to segment user-defined objects of interest in an interactive manner. While the model performance on natural images is impressive, medical image domains pose their own set of challenges. Here, we perform an extensive evaluation of SAM's ability to segment medical images on a collection of 19 medical imaging datasets from various modalities and anatomies. In our experiments, we generated point and box prompts for SAM using a standard method that simulates interactive segmentation. We report the following findings: (1) SAM's performance based on single prompts highly varies depending on the dataset and the task, from IoU=0.1135 for spine MRI to IoU=0.8650 for hip X-ray. (2) Segmentation performance appears to be better for well-circumscribed objects with prompts with less ambiguity such as the segmentation of organs in computed tomography and poorer in various other scenarios such as the segmentation of brain tumors. (3) SAM performs notably better with box prompts than with point prompts. (4) SAM outperforms similar methods RITM, SimpleClick, and FocalClick in almost all single-point prompt settings. (5) When multiple-point prompts are provided iteratively, SAM's performance generally improves only slightly while other methods' performance improves to the level that surpasses SAM's point-based performance. We also provide several illustrations for SAM's performance on all tested datasets, iterative segmentation, and SAM's behavior given prompt ambiguity. We conclude that SAM shows impressive zero-shot segmentation performance for certain medical imaging datasets, but moderate to poor performance for others. SAM has the potential to make a significant impact in automated medical image segmentation in medical imaging, but appropriate care needs to be applied when using it. Code for evaluation SAM is made publicly available at https://github.com/mazurowski-lab/segment-anything-medical-evaluation.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Dataset of breast ultrasound images
    Al-Dhabyani, Walid
    Gomaa, Mohammed
    Khaled, Hussien
    Fahmy, Aly
    [J]. DATA IN BRIEF, 2020, 28
  • [2] Anna M., 2016, Hasnin, kaggle446, shirzad, Will, C., yffud, 2016. Ultrasound Nerve Segmentation
  • [3] Medical Image Analysis using Convolutional Neural Networks: A Review
    Anwar, Syed Muhammad
    Majid, Muhammad
    Qayyum, Adnan
    Awais, Muhammad
    Alnowami, Majdi
    Khan, Muhammad Khurram
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS, 2018, 42 (11)
  • [4] The Liver Tumor Segmentation Benchmark (LiTS)
    Bilic, Patrick
    Christ, Patrick
    Li, Hongwei Bran
    Vorontsov, Eugene
    Ben-Cohen, Avi
    Kaissis, Georgios
    Szeskin, Adi
    Jacobs, Colin
    Mamani, Gabriel Efrain Humpire
    Chartrand, Gabriel
    Lohoefer, Fabian
    Holch, Julian Walter
    Sommer, Wieland
    Hofmann, Felix
    Hostettler, Alexandre
    Lev-Cohain, Naama
    Drozdzal, Michal
    Amitai, Michal Marianne
    Vivanti, Refael
    Sosna, Jacob
    Ezhov, Ivan
    Sekuboyina, Anjany
    Navarro, Fernando
    Kofler, Florian
    Paetzold, Johannes C.
    Shit, Suprosanna
    Hu, Xiaobin
    Lipkova, Jana
    Rempfler, Markus
    Piraud, Marie
    Kirschke, Jan
    Wiestler, Benedikt
    Zhang, Zhiheng
    Huelsemeyer, Christian
    Beetz, Marcel
    Ettlinger, Florian
    Antonelli, Michela
    Bae, Woong
    Bellver, Miriam
    Bi, Lei
    Chen, Hao
    Chlebus, Grzegorz
    Dam, Erik B.
    Dou, Qi
    Fu, Chi-Wing
    Georgescu, Bogdan
    Giro-I-Nieto, Xavier
    Gruen, Felix
    Han, Xu
    Heng, Pheng-Ann
    [J]. MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS, 2023, 84
  • [5] Bradski G, 2000, DR DOBBS J, V25, P120
  • [6] Chen J., 2021, INT JOINT C ART INT
  • [7] FocalClick: Towards Practical Interactive Image Segmentation
    Chen, Xi
    Zhao, Zhiyan
    Zhang, Yilei
    Duan, Manni
    Qi, Donglian
    Zhao, Hengshuang
    [J]. 2022 IEEE/CVF CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER VISION AND PATTERN RECOGNITION (CVPR 2022), 2022, : 1290 - 1299
  • [8] Cheng DJ, 2023, Arxiv, DOI arXiv:2305.00035
  • [9] Deng RN, 2023, Arxiv, DOI arXiv:2304.04155
  • [10] Dosovitskiy Alexey, 2020, INT C LEARN REPR ICL, DOI DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2010.11929