Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The flowchart of the proposed method.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Superpixel image segmentation.

(a) original image. (b) result of superpixel segmentation.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Gradients mapping and curvature mapping.

(a)Original image. (b) Gradients mapping. (c) Curvature mapping.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Results of structure learning.

(a) Result of superpixel segmentation. (b) Graph structure based on adjacent superpixel nodes. (c) Structure learning result based on the proposed method where λ = 6.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Fractal features.

(a) Original image. (b) Otsu quantitatively image. (c)-(f) Four thresholded binary images obtained from (b). (g)-(j) Three features (area, mean intensity, and fractal dimension) from (c)-(f) respectively.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 1.

Parametric description.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 6.

Results of HGG image segmentation in BRATS data set.

(a) Original image. (b) Ground truth. (c) Superpixel segmentation. (d)-(f) Three demonstrations of segmentation results from the proposed method.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Results of LGG image segmentation in BRATS data set.

(a) Original image. (b) Ground truth. (c) Superpixel segmentation. (d)-(f) Three demonstrations of segmentation results from the proposed method.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Results of HGG image segmentation in HNPPH data set.

(a)&(d) Original image. (b)&(e) Ground truth. (c)&(f) Segmentation results from the proposed method.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Results of LGG image segmentation in HNPPH data set.

(a)&(d) Original image. (b)&(e) Ground truth. (c)&(f) Segmentation results from the proposed method.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 2.

The quantitative evaluation of the proposed approach on data sets.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 10.

The comparison of our approach with three related works for segmentation in BRATS data set.

The first column: the original images. The second column: ground truth. The third column: the proposed method. The fourth column: the method of Thiruvenkadam et al. The fifth column: the method of Zhao et al. The sixth column: the method of Gu et al.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

The comparison of our approach with three related works for segmentation in HNPPH data set.

The first column: the original images. The second column: ground truth. The third column: the proposed method. The fourth column: the method of Thiruvenkadam et al. The fifth column: the method of Zhao et al. The sixth column: the method of Gu et al.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 3.

The quantitative comparison of our approach with three related works for segmentation on the two data sets.

More »

Table 3 Expand