Seed-Based Region Growing (SBRG) vs Adaptive Network-Based Inference System (ANFIS) vs Fuzzyc-Means (FCM): Brain Abnormalities Segmentation

Segmentation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) images is the most challenging problems in medical imaging. This paper compares the performances of Seed-Based Region Growing (SBRG), Adaptive Network-Based Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) and Fuzzy c-Means (FCM) in brain abnormalities segmentation. Controlled experimental data is used, which designed in such a way that prior knowledge of the size of the abnormalities are known. This is done by cutting various sizes of abnormalities and pasting it onto normal brain tissues. The normal tissues or the background are divided into three different categories. The segmentation is done with fifty seven data of each category. The knowledge of the size of the abnormalities by the number of pixels are then compared with segmentation results of three techniques proposed. It was proven that the ANFIS returns the best segmentation performances in light abnormalities, whereas the SBRG on the other hand performed well in dark abnormalities segmentation.

Bridging Quantitative and Qualitative of Glaucoma Detection

Glaucoma diagnosis involves extracting three features of the fundus image; optic cup, optic disc and vernacular. Present manual diagnosis is expensive, tedious and time consuming. A number of researches have been conducted to automate this process. However, the variability between the diagnostic capability of an automated system and ophthalmologist has yet to be established. This paper discusses the efficiency and variability between ophthalmologist opinion and digital technique; threshold. The efficiency and variability measures are based on image quality grading; poor, satisfactory or good. The images are separated into four channels; gray, red, green and blue. A scientific investigation was conducted on three ophthalmologists who graded the images based on the image quality. The images are threshold using multithresholding and graded as done by the ophthalmologist. A comparison of grade from the ophthalmologist and threshold is made. The results show there is a small variability between result of ophthalmologists and digital threshold.