scispace - formally typeset
P

Peter M. Full

Researcher at University Hospital Heidelberg

Publications -  11
Citations -  1347

Peter M. Full is an academic researcher from University Hospital Heidelberg. The author has contributed to research in topics: Computer science & Imaging phantom. The author has an hindex of 4, co-authored 7 publications receiving 653 citations. Previous affiliations of Peter M. Full include Mannheim University of Applied Sciences & German Cancer Research Center.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Deep Learning Techniques for Automatic MRI Cardiac Multi-Structures Segmentation and Diagnosis: Is the Problem Solved?

TL;DR: How far state-of-the-art deep learning methods can go at assessing CMRI, i.e., segmenting the myocardium and the two ventricles as well as classifying pathologies is measured, to open the door to highly accurate and fully automatic analysis of cardiac CMRI.
Journal ArticleDOI

Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a comprehensive analysis of biomedical image analysis challenges conducted up to now and demonstrate the importance of challenges and show that the lack of quality control has critical consequences.
Book ChapterDOI

Improving Surgical Training Phantoms by Hyperrealism: Deep Unpaired Image-to-Image Translation from Real Surgeries

TL;DR: In this article, an extension of cycle-consistent GANs, named tempCycleGAN, is proposed to improve temporal consistency for endoscopic reconstructive mitral valve procedures, which shows highly realistic results with regard to replacement of the silicone appearance of the phantom valve by intraoperative tissue texture, while keeping crucial features in the scene, such as instruments, sutures and prostheses.
Journal ArticleDOI

MOOD 2020: A Public Benchmark for Out-of-Distribution Detection and Localization on Medical Images

TL;DR: The Medical-Out-Of-Distribution-Analysis-Challenge (MOOD) is introduced as an open, fair, and unbiased benchmark for OoD methods in the medical imaging domain and shows that performance has a strong positive correlation with the perceived difficulty, and that all algorithms show a high variance for different anomalies, making it yet hard to recommend them for clinical practice.