Characterization of cardiomegaly disease from x-ray images using mean shift based image segmentation

  • Deepak A. Kulkarni
  • P. U. Dere
Conference paper


Diagnostic imaging is an invaluable tool in medicine. Different methods of getting images like Gamma Ray Imaging, X-Ray Imaging, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), Digital Mammography, and other imaging modalities provide an effective means for noninvasive mapping the anatomy of a subject. These technologies have greatly increased knowledge of normal and diseased anatomy for medical research and are a critical component in diagnosis and treatment planning. With the limitation of number of exposures for Gamma Ray or X-Rays to the patient, it is difficult to see the critical feature if the intensity/brightness/ contrast are not proper. Moreover the growing size and number of these medical images have necessitated the use of computers to facilitate processing and analysis. In particular, computer algorithms for the intensity/ brightness/contrast adjustment, delineation of anatomical structures and other regions of interest are becoming increasingly important in assisting and automating specific radiological tasks.


Feature Space Image Segmentation Segmentation Method Markov Random Field Digital Mammography 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Comaniciu, P. Meer, “Mean shift: A robust approach toward feature space analysis”, IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2002, 24, pp. 603–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Christoudias, B. Georgescu, P. Meer, “Synergism in Low Level Vision”, Intl Conf on Pattern Recognition, 2002, 4, pp. 40190Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Georgescu, I. Shimshoni, P. Meer, “Mean Shift Based Clustering in High Dimensions: A Texture Classification Example”, Intl Conf on Compute r Vision, 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Felzenszwalb, D. Huttenlocher, “Efficient Graph- Based Image Segmentation”, Intl Journal of Computer Vision, 2004, 59 (2)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Martin, C. Fowlkes, D. Tal, J. Malik, “A Database of Human Segmented Natural Images and its Application to Evaluating Segmentation Algorithms and Measuring Ecological Statistics”, Intl Conf on Computer Vision, 2001Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Unnikrishnan, C. Pantofaru, M. Hebert, “A Measure for Objective Evaluation of Image Segmentation Algorithms”, CVPR workshop on Empirical Evaluation Methods in Computer Vision, 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Unnikrishnan, M. Hebert, “Measures of Similarity”, IEEE Workshop on Computer Vision Applications, 2005, pp. 394–400Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Verma, M. Meila, “A comparison of spectral clustering algorithms”, University of Washington technical report, 2001Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Kannan, S. Vempala, A. Vetta, “On clustering’s - good, bad and spectral”, FOCS, 2000, pp. 367–377Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Meila, J. Shi, “Learning segmentation by random walks”, NIPS, 2000, pp. 873–879Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Y. Ng, M. I. Jordan, Y. Weiss, “On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm”, NIPS, 2002, pp. 849–856Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Meila, “Comparing clustering’s”, University of Washington Technical Report, 2002Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Shi, J. Malik, “Normalized cuts and image segmentation”, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Learning, 2000, pp. 888–905Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Martin, “An Empirical Approach to Grouping and Segmentation”, Ph.D. dissertation, 2002 University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India Pvt. Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepak A. Kulkarni
    • 1
  • P. U. Dere
    • 1
  1. 1.Terna Engineering CollegeNerulIndia

Personalised recommendations