mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Self-Supervised Versus Supervised Training for Segmentation of Organoid Images

arXiv 2311.11198 ↗First posted 19 Nov 2023cs.CV cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The process of annotating relevant data in the field of digital microscopy can be both time-consuming and especially expensive due to the required technical skills and human-expert knowledge. Consequently, large amounts of microscopic image data sets remain unlabeled, preventing their effective exploitation using deep-learning algorithms. In recent years it has been shown that a lot of relevant information can be drawn from unlabeled data. Self-supervised learning (SSL) is a promising solution based on learning intrinsic features under a pretext task that is similar to the main task without requiring labels. The trained result is transferred to the main task - image segmentation in our case. A ResNet50 U-Net was first trained to restore images of liver progenitor organoids from augmented images using the Structural Similarity Index Metric (SSIM), alone, and using SSIM combined with L1 loss. Both the encoder and decoder were trained in tandem. The weights were transferred to another U-Net model designed for segmentation with frozen encoder weights, using Binary Cross Entropy, Dice, and Intersection over Union (IoU) losses. For comparison, we used the same U-Net architecture to train two supervised models, one utilizing the ResNet50 encoder as well as a simple CNN. Results showed that self-supervised learning models using a 25% pixel drop or image blurring augmentation performed better than the other augmentation techniques using the IoU loss. When trained on only 114 images for the main task, the self-supervised learning approach outperforms the supervised method achieving an F1-score of 0.85, with higher stability, in contrast to an F1=0.78 scored by the supervised method. Furthermore, when trained with larger data sets (1,000 images), self-supervised learning is still able to perform better, achieving an F1-score of 0.92, contrasting to a score of 0.85 for the supervised method.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Nov 2023.

Builds on

18 of 48 references.

References · 18

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
  2. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
  3. 2017MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applicationscited by 3,845
  4. 2015Unsupervised Visual Representation Learning by Context Predictioncited by 1,066
  5. 2020A Survey on Contrastive Self-supervised Learningcited by 554
  6. 2017Road Extraction by Deep Residual U-Netcited by 333
  7. 2021Big Self-Supervised Models Advance Medical Image Classificationcited by 320
  8. 2020A survey of loss functions for semantic segmentationcited by 217
  9. 2019Dice Loss for Data-imbalanced NLP Taskscited by 182
  10. 2018Methods for Segmentation and Classification of Digital Microscopy Tissue Imagescited by 73
  11. 2019Optimizing the Dice Score and Jaccard Index for Medical Image Segmentation: Theory & Practicecited by 71
  12. 2020Optimization for Medical Image Segmentation: Theory and Practice when evaluating with Dice Score or Jaccard Indexcited by 52
6 more
  1. 2021Hard Sample Aware Noise Robust Learning for Histopathology Image Classificationcited by 48
  2. 2015Loss Functions for Neural Networks for Image Processingcited by 41
  3. 2017On the Compactness, Efficiency, and Representation of 3D Convolutional Networks: Brain Parcellation as a Pretext Taskcited by 36
  4. 2019DEPA: Self-Supervised Audio Embedding for Depression Detectioncited by 16
  5. 2021Sample selection for efficient image annotationcited by 4
  6. 2021A fully automated end-to-end process for fluorescence microscopy images of yeast cells: From segmentation to detection and classificationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.