# Impact of loss function in Deep Learning methods for accurate retinal vessel segmentation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.00536 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.00536/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1505.04597/) (2015)
- [CBAM: Convolutional Block Attention Module](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.06521/) (2018)
- [UNet++: A Nested U-Net Architecture for Medical Image Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.10165/) (2018)
- [Attention U-Net: Learning Where to Look for the Pancreas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.03999/) (2018)
- [A survey of loss functions for semantic segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14822/) (2020)
- [SA-UNet: Spatial Attention U-Net for Retinal Vessel Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03696/) (2020)
- [Dynamic Deep Networks for Retinal Vessel Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.07803/) (2019)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Preserving instance continuity and length in segmentation through connectivity-aware loss computation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03154/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The retinal vessel network studied through fundus images contributes to the diagnosis of multiple diseases not only found in the eye. The segmentation of this system may help the specialized task of analyzing these images by assisting in the quantification of morphological characteristics. Due to its relevance, several Deep Learning-based architectures have been tested for tackling this problem automatically. However, the impact of loss function selection on the segmentation of the intricate retinal blood vessel system hasn't been systematically evaluated. In this work, we present the comparison of the loss functions Binary Cross Entropy, Dice, Tversky, and Combo loss using the deep learning architectures (i.e. U-Net, Attention U-Net, and Nested UNet) with the DRIVE dataset. Their performance is assessed using four metrics: the AUC, the mean squared error, the dice score, and the Hausdorff distance. The models were trained with the same number of parameters and epochs. Using dice score and AUC, the best combination was SA-UNet with Combo loss, which had an average of 0.9442 and 0.809 respectively. The best average of Hausdorff distance and mean square error were obtained using the Nested U-Net with the Dice loss function, which had an average of 6.32 and 0.0241 respectively. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the selection of loss function