cs.CVOct 6, 2024
SaveOptimising for the Unknown: Domain Alignment for Cephalometric Landmark Detection
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford
Abstract
Cephalometric Landmark Detection is the process of identifying key areas for cephalometry. Each landmark is a single GT point labelled by a clinician. A machine learning model predicts the probability locus of a landmark represented by a heatmap. This work, for the 2024 CL-Detection MICCAI Challenge, proposes a domain alignment strategy with a regional facial extraction module and an X-ray artefact augmentation procedure. The challenge ranks our method's results as the best in MRE of 1.186mm and third in the 2mm SDR of 82.04% on the online validation leaderboard. The code is available at https://github.com/Julian-Wyatt/OptimisingfortheUnknown.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Abstraction of the RCNN regional face extraction module.
Figure 2: ConvNeXt V2 MLP feature pyramid prediction architecture.
Figure 3: Ablation studies trained with the nano encoder. (a) Impact of RCNN padding around landmarks for bounding box generation during training from 16-128 pixels. Models are trained on patients 1-400 and evaluated on 401-600. Here, y is a deterministic image pad and crop method and z is a standard pad to aspect ratio and resize. (b) Effect of varying the frequency of X-ray artefact simulation on model performance (Fold 1). (c) Influence of the number of hottest heatmap values averaged to determine the final coordinates (Fold 1).
Figure 4: Qualitative results for four cases: the worst overall SDR for the tiny encoder ( 062.bmp ), the worst for the baseline ( 194.bmp ), and two hand-picked failure cases ( 447.bmp & 535.bmp ). Blue dots represent predictions within , red dots are outside , and green dots are ground truth, with yellow lines connecting predictions to ground truth. The top-left number indicates the MRE for each image, and all images are cropped to square to highlight landmarks rather than by the RCNN module.
| Method | Fold 1 | Fold 2 | Fold 3 | Fold 4 | Ensemble | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRE | SDR | MRE | SDR | MRE | SDR | MRE | SDR | MRE | SDR | |
| Baseline [ 11 ] (CHH) | 1.20 | 83.12 | 1.21 | 82.44 | 1.29 | 81.56 | 1.25 | 82.19 | 1.22 | 82.42 |
| Nano Encoder | 1.16 | 84.13 | 1.16 | 83.87 | 1.24 | 82.78 | 1.20 | 83.40 | 0.97 | 87.85 |
| Tiny Encoder | 1.18 | 84.13 | 1.16 | 83.68 | 1.24 | 82.49 | 1.20 | 83.20 | 0.93 | 88.61 |
Table 1: Four fold cross validation performance with ensembling performance across every training image.