Anatomical Object Detection in Fetal Ultrasound: Computer-Expert Agreements

  • Bahbibi Rahmatullah
  • J. Alison Noble
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 404)


An alternative approach to the sliding window method for the detection of anatomical objects in fetal ultrasound image is proposed in this pper. The global feature symmetry map derived from the local phase computation of the images was integrated within a machine learning framework that trains a local classifier using local Haar features from intensity images. This provides a computationally cheap step before invoking a local object detector to be applied in plausible locations. The proposed method exhibits better generalization capability when tested on 2384 images with an accuracy of 82.75% and 72.55% for the detection of the stomach and the umbilical vein, respectively. It also has faster computation time than the typical local object detector with the sliding window approach. It was observed that the method achieved high accuracy detection by focusing only on the high probability region and discarding many false positives candidates as in the sliding-window method. The agreement between the automated method and the experts in detecting the presence and absence of the stomach and the umbilical vein were also compared. The results indicate that the agreement between the automated method and the experts were very good for computer-random-selected images and the agreement was comparable to inter-experts agreement.


Ultrasound Local phase Monogenic signal Feature symmetry Haar features AdaBoost Anatomical object detection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sarris, I., Ioannou, C., Chamberlain, P., Ohuma, E., Roseman, F., Hoch, L., Altman, D.G., Papageorghiou, A.T.: Intra- and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 39, 266–273 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell, S., Wilkin, D.: Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 82, 689–697 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chitty, L.S., Altman, D.G., Henderson, A., Campbell, S.: Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 101, 125–131 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lampert, C.H., Blaschko, M.B., Hofmann, T.: Beyond sliding windows: Object localization by efficient subwindow search. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dalal, N., Triggs, B.: Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 886–893 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrari, V., Fevrier, L., Jurie, F., Schmid, C.: Groups of adjacent contour segments for object detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 30, 36–51 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chum, O., Zisserman, A.: An exemplar model for learning object classes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosch, A., Zisserman, A., Munoz, X.: Representing shape with a spatial pyramid kernel. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Image and Video Retrieval (CIVR), pp. 401–408 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kovesi, P.: Symmetry and Asymmetry From Local Phase. In: Proceedings of the 10th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 185–190 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rahmatullah, B., Papageorghiou, A.T., Noble, J.A.: Integration of Local and Global Features for Anatomical Object Detection in Ultrasound. In: Ayache, N., Delingette, H., Golland, P., Mori, K. (eds.) MICCAI 2012, Part III. LNCS, vol. 7512, pp. 402–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahmatullah, B., Sarris, I., Papageorghiou, A., Noble, J.A.: Quality control of fetal ultrasound images: Detection of abdomen anatomical landmarks using AdaBoost. In: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro (ISBI), pp. 6–9 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rajpoot, K., Vicente, V.V., Noble, J.A.: Local-phase based 3d boundary detection using monogenic signal and its application to real-time 3-d echocardiography images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro (ISBI), pp. 783–786 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Felsberg, M., Sommer, G.: The monogenic signal. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 49, 3136–3144 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kovesi, P.: Invariant Measures of Image Features from Phase Information. Department of Psychology, PhD. Thesis. University of Western Australia, Perth (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shen, D., Zhan, Y., Davatzikos, C.: Segmentation of prostate boundaries from ultrasound images using statistical shape model. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 22, 539–551 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenspan, H., Belongie, S., Goodman, R., Perona, P., Rakshit, S., Anderson, C.H.: Overcomplete steerable pyramid filters and rotation invariance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 222–228 (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Viola, P., Jones, M.J.: Robust Real-Time Face Detection. International Journal of Computer Vision 57, 137–154 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freund, Y., Schapire, R.E.: A Decision-Theoretic Generalization of On-Line Learning and an Application to Boosting. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 55, 119–139 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Intergrowth 21st: The International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century Study Protocol, Oxford University (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Byrt, T., Bishop, J., Carlin, J.B.: Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46, 423–429 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohen, J.: A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 37–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Altman, D.G.: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman and Hall (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bahbibi Rahmatullah
    • 1
  • J. Alison Noble
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Arts, Computing and Creative IndustrySultan Idris Education UniversityMalaysia
  2. 2.Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Dept. of Engineering ScienceUniversity of OxfordUK

Personalised recommendations