Deep Learning Models Delineates Multiple
Nuclear Phenotypes in H&E Stained Histology
Sections
Mina Khoshdeli, member, IEEE, and Bahram Parvin, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Nuclear segmentation is an important step for
profiling aberrant regions of histology sections. However,
segmentation is a complex problem as a result of variations in
nuclear geometry (e.g., size, shape), nuclear type (e.g., epithelial,
fibroblast), and nuclear phenotypes (e.g., vesicular, aneuploidy).
The problem is further complicated as a result of variations in
sample preparation. It is shown and validated that fusion of very
deep convolutional networks overcomes (i) complexities associated
with multiple nuclear phenotypes, and (ii) separation of
overlapping nuclei. The fusion relies on integrating of networks
that learn region- and boundary-based representations. The
system has been validated on a diverse set of nuclear phenotypes
that correspond to the breast and brain histology sections.
Index Terms—nuclear segmentation, deep convolutional neural
networks, color decomposition, vesicular phenotype

I. INTRODUCTION

N

morphology is an important step in identifying
aberrant phenotypes in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)
stained histology sections. However, to date, the problem of
nuclear segmentation, for every type of nuclear phenotype
remains unresolved. If nuclear segmentation is preformed
robustly, then cell types and tissue architecture can be
represented faithfully for normal and malignant phenotypes,
and tumor subtypes and their microenvironments can be
stratified across a large cohort. The main challenges originate
from technical variations and biological heterogeneity in a large
cohort. Technical variations refer to non-uniformity in sample
preparations and fixation, and biological heterogeneity refers to
the fact that no two histology sections are alike. In most cases,
technical variations are also coupled with biological
heterogeneity, which complicates the construction of a stable
computational model for nuclear segmentation. The diversity of
the nuclear phenotypes originates from many factors. For
example, (i) cancer cells tend to be larger than normal cells, and
if coupled with high chromatin content, they may indicate
aneuploidy; (ii) nuclei may have a vesicular phenotype; (iii)
nuclei may have high pleomorphism in tumor sections; (iv)
cells may be going through apoptosis or necrosis; (v) cell
cytoplasm may be lost as a result of clear cell carcinoma; and
(vi) cellular phenotype may be altered as a result of
macromolecules being secreted into the microenvironment.
UCLEAR

B. Parvin and M. Khoshdeli are with the Department of Electrical and
Biomedical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, 80557 USA.

These issues suggest complexities that are associated with
nuclear segmentation as one of the steps toward profiling of
histology sections for diagnostic and discovery of new
biomarkers. Because of the complexities associated with
vesicular phenotypes, most of the previous segmentation
literature has focused on nuclear phenotypes having high DNA
contents. However, we show that simultaneous delineation of
vesicular and other phenotypes are overcome with the deep
learning models.
In recent years, convolutional neural networks (CNN)s have
emerged as the most powerful technique for image
classification [1, 2], and image segmentation [3-6]. CNNs can
be continuously trained and improved as the number of
annotated training samples increases. Furthermore, their
architecture is modular, where each module can be trained for
different image-based representation, and modules can be
integrated to improve the outcome. For example, one CNN
module can be trained for the boundary-based representation of
the objects of interest, a second CNN module can be trained by
the underlying spatial distribution of the object, and a third
CNN module can be trained for the location of an object in
terms of its bounding box. Collectively, integration of these
three modules can improve the segmentation task.
Consequently, because of the diversity of the nuclear
phenotypes and complexities associated with modeling the
appearance of nuclear morphology, CNN has the potential to
map and capture these diversities through generative models,
i.e., training and automatic feature learning. We propose a
model based on deep CNN for nuclear segmentation with the
integration of boundary- and region-based information, i.e., a
fusion of CNNs constructed by region-based and boundarybased segmentation. The region-based model includes a deep
convolutional neural model, which labels foreground (nuclei)
and background pixels. Although the region-based model could
not distinguish touching or overlapping nuclei, the boundarybased model can produce boundary features or perceptual
boundary features. Finally, the last step of the framework is to
fuse the information from the two models, where fusion is
performed by training another convolutional neural network.
Figure 1 illustrates the general framework of the proposed
nuclear segmentation method. The main advantages of the
proposed model are (i) enabling segmentation of nuclear
phenotype with vesicular phenotype, (ii) high throughput

Fig. 1. Nuclear segmentation architecture includes three ENets. Two ENets are used for region-based and boundary-based segmentation. The outputs of
these two networks are then fused through a third ENet.

processing that will be necessary for processing of whole slide
images; and (iii) contributing to the separation of touching or
overlapping nuclei by incorporating boundary- and regionbased information. Organization of this paper is as follows:
Section II reviews previous research. Section III describes the
details of the proposed deep learning model. Section IV
presents our experimental results. Lastly, Section V concludes
the paper.
II. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORKS
There are two comprehensive review papers on the nuclear
segmentation techniques [7, 8]; therefore, we limit ourselves to
a summary here, which span from simple thresholding to the
application of convolutional neural networks.
The most popular nuclear segmentation approaches include
thresholding following morphological operations [9, 10],
watershed [11], deformable models [12], and graph-based
models [13, 14] or a combination of these methods. In[10],
images are binarized, morphological operators are applied, and
nuclear features have been computed to profile the tumor
morphology. In [11], the watershed segmentation has been
applied to the magnitude of the gradient image, where the initial
seeds have been generated by morphological operations. This
technique is very dependent on the initial seeds, and oversegmentation may occur due to non-uniform nuclear regions. In
[12], an efficient active contour model was proposed; however,
this technique would not work well for nuclei having a vesicular
phenotype. Similar methods have also been proposed with
multi-step graph cut formulation [14], but the key assumption
remains nuclei with high chromatin content, In [13], Gaussian
Mixture Model (GMM) models of nuclear phenotypes were
constructed by interactively annotating nuclear regions. The
GMM representation was based on the LoG response and the
RGB values in the color space. Next, a multi-reference graph

cut method was developed to binarize the image. Subsequently,
each clump of overlapping nuclei was partitioned using
geometric reasoning. Because this technique is model-based,
intrinsic variations of colony and intensity are captured in
GMM. A similar method was in proposed [15]; however,
thresholding was based on training parameters of the model
using support vector machine (SVM); however, graph cut has
the additional advantage over SVM since it incorporates spatial
consistency. In summary, except the last two methods, most
classical techniques are procedural and model-free with a large
number of free parameters. Model-based methods [13, 15]
overcome complexities associated with the technical variations
and biological heterogeneity to a certain extent with the net
result being an improved performance profile.
There are wide applications of CNN for processing of stained
histology sections that include (a) nuclear detection, (b) nuclear
segmentation, and (c) gland segmentation.
(a) With respect to nuclear detection, three strategies are
reviewed here. In [16], a spatially constrained CNN model has
been trained for nuclear detection. The model has been spatially
constrained by assigning a higher probability to the pixels that
are closer to the centroids of nuclei. A similar approach has
been proposed in [17], where a CNN model is trained to
generate the positions of the nuclei and their corresponding
confidence in a given patch. In [18], a CNN model has been
trained with the feature-based representation of the original
image based on the Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) filter
response. The advantage of the LoG filter is that it accentuates
the blob-shape of nuclei and provides an approximate location
of each nucleus. This model has been applied to detect various
types of the nuclear phenotype.
(b) With respect to nuclear segmentation, CNN models have
been trained for region-based segmentation, semantic-level
feature extraction, and nuclear segmentation. In [19], an active

contour model has been utilized for nuclear segmentation in
H&E stained breast histology sections, and a CNN model has
been trained to extract semantic-level features and to make an
initial classification of the image into the low, intermediate, or
high-grade tumor. Subsequently, the final classification is
refined by integrating semantic-level (e.g., the ratio of nuclei
belonging to different grades), colony organization level (e.g.,
the relationship of nuclei within and across colonies), and pixellevel (e.g., texture) features to train an SVM. However, the
active contour model assumes that nuclei are well isolated and
have high chromatin, but this is not the case in practice. In fact,
for breast cancer, nuclear atypia is one of the visual
representation for grading. In [20], a CNN-based model has
been proposed for nuclei segmentation from H&E stained
sections, where the CNN is trained to classify each pixel to be
nuclei or non-nuclei.
In [21], a multiscale convolutional network has been proposed
for the segmentation of cervical cytoplasm and nuclei. The
multiscale CNN incorporates a pyramid image representation
for initial pixel-based classification. Next graphcut is applied
since CNN does not enforce spatial continuity. Finally,
segmentation results are refined by morphological operators
such as a marker-based watershed. In [22], Nuclear
segmentation has been performed by converting the RGB
image into gray scale, denoising the image, and applying the
CNN to separate background and foreground. Finally, nuclear
segmentation is refined by morphological operators. A similar
approach has been proposed in [23], a CNN based model has
been trained to provide the initial probability map for nuclear
segmentation. Then, a deformable shape model has been
applied to separate overlapping nuclei.
(c) With respect to the gland segmentation, a controlled study
was performed to demonstrate that CNN outperforms
engineered feature extraction coupled with SVM [24]. Another
group showed an improved performance by fusing multiple
CNNs that are trained with different segmentation objective in
terms of regions, boundaries, and detection [25].
We propose a fusion model based on very deep CNN for
nuclear segmentation from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)
stained histology sections. The proposed model is different
from previous research in three ways. First, previous
researchers have trained CNN models to infer a probability
vector for each pixel from a sliding input patch. In contrast, our
approach is not based on mapping the center pixel of a patch to
a unique classification label. Second, proposed networks are
very deep, consisting of 17 layers, and all convolutions are
either 3-by-3 or one-dimensional. As a result, training and
testing are expedited because of the low dimensionality of
convolution operations. Third, different representations of the
underlying spatial distributions are computed, where each
representation has its own deep learning model. The

representations incorporate both region- and boundary-based
information.
The basic computational unit of the proposed learning model
has an encoder-decoder architecture, leverages an extension of
ENet [4], and has 17 layers for with small convolutional
operations; thus, enabling efficient training and instance
segmentation during testing. The ENet model also has the
advantages of using various types of convolution operations
that include regular, asymmetric, and dilated. The diversity of
convolutional operations (i) helps to reduce the computational
load by shifting the architecture of 5-by-5 convolutions in onelayer into 5-by-1, and 1-by-5 convolutions in two layers [26],
and (ii) modulates the receptive field through the application of
dilated convolutions. Finally, the proposed model builds on the
basic computational unit to fuse region and boundary-based
information. The boundary-based model helps to complete
perceptual boundaries, which is important for delineating
overlapping nuclei.
III. METHOD
In this section, we summarize steps for improving nuclear
segmentation through region-based, a fusion of region and
boundary-based information, and post-processing.
A. Deep Learning Models for Region-based Segmentation
Traditionally, convolutional neural networks (CNN)s have
been used to perform image classification in the computer
vision literature. CNN consists of several layers of convolution
operation, where each convolutional layer is usually followed
by the max-pooling. The last layer is a fully connected layer,
which maps a high dimensional vector to a low dimensional
probability vector corresponding to distinct classes. In recent
years, a diversity of CNN architectures have been proposed
based on the depth and size of the model for the classification
task (e.g., ImageNet [1], VGG [2], ResNet [27]). The
segmentation task can also be performed by using a sliding
window coupled with the classification to label each pixel in the
image. However, this approach has been shown to be either
noisy, or less accurate, or time-consuming. To overcome these
issues, alternative CNN architectures (e.g., FCN[6], UNet[5],
SegNet[3], ENet[4]) have been proposed for region-based
segmentation. These models are based on the encoder-decoder
architecture. The encoder architecture is the same as vanilla
CNN, which consists of several convolution layers followed by
max-pooling. The encoder layers perform feature extraction
and region-based classification of the down-sampled image. On
the other hand, the decoder layers perform up-sampling after
each convolutional layer, to compensate the down-sampling
effects of the encoder, and, to generate an output with the same
size as the input. Some of these models are symmetric (e.g., the
encoder and decoder have the same depth) and some are
asymmetric. In the latter case, the decoder has the advantage of

Fig. 2. The complete architecture of the ENet model for nuclear segmentation is shown in terms of layers of convolutional networks. The model includes
both encoder (light blue) and decoder (dark blue) parts. The upward and downward arrows indicate up-sampling and down-sampling operations. Right hand
arrows show different types of convolution including normal, dilated, and asysmmetric.

the smaller number of convolutional layers for reducing the
computational load. One of the limitations of the encoderdecoder architecture is that up-sampling in the decoder layers
may not compensate for the drastic down-sampling that takes
place in the encoder layers. As a result, detailed spatial
information may be lost. Several strategies have been proposed
to overcome the loss of detailed information. For example, (i)
FCN and UNet addressed this problem by feed-forwarding the
output of the feature maps, from the encoder layers to the
matched decoder layers, and (ii) ENet and SegNet save the
indices of the selected pixels in the max-pooling layer, which
are integrated sparsely in the up-sampled output in the decoder
layers.
B. Region- and Boundary-based Segmentation with ENet
We experimented with several configurations of the ENet
model to assess the performance of the nuclear segmentation.
ENet has been shown to have a superior segmentation
performance when compared to alternative encoder-decoder
architectures (e.g., SegNet) [4]. First, the performance of the
segmentation was evaluated with region-based models. Next,
we examined if the performance can be further increased by
fusing of region- and boundary-based representations. These
processes are preceded by color decomposition (CD) step. CD
reduces the required sample size, for training, and speeds up the
computational throughput. This step decomposes the RGB
signal into two channels of information corresponding to the
DNA and protein contents, where the former channel is used for
subsequent processing. CD is based on a recently published
method that has been shown to provide superior results [28].
ENet is an asymmetric encoder-decoder model for real-time
semantic segmentation. It consists of 17 layers where the initial
layer performs subsampling to reduce the computational load.
The remainders are (i) 10 convolutional layers, in parallel, with

max-pooling for the encoder, (ii) 5 convolutional layers in
parallel, with up-sampling, for the decoder, and (iii) a final 1×1
convolutional layer to merge the output bank of the penultimate
layer. Figure 2 shows the ENet architecture. All the convolution
operations are either 3-by-3 or 5-by-5. However, 5-by-5
convolutions are asymmetric, i.e., they are implemented
separately as 5-by-1 and 1-by-5 convolutions to reduce the
computational load. In addition, some of the layers have been
used dilated convolution to increase the effective receptive field
of the associated layer. This helps with the faster growth of the
receptive field of the encoder without using down-sampling.
The ENet model is highly efficient since all convolutions are
either 3-by-3 or by 5-5 and parallel, as opposed to sequential,
integration with max-pooling potentially preserves intrinsic
details of the phenotypic signature.
Having summarized the ENet architecture, we train with
annotated regions and boundaries. The latter is computed from
annotated regions corresponding to each nucleus. Training for
regions has the advantage of learning a model for a diversity of
phenotypes (e.g., vesicular, hyperchromatic). On the other
hand, training for boundaries has the advantage of (i)
overcoming fuzzy boundaries of the nuclei predicted by regionbased ENet, (ii) compensating the loss of detailed spatial
information as a result of max-pooling, (iii) separating touching
or overlapping nuclei with perceptual boundaries. Both regionand boundary-based segmentation utilize the ENet architecture.
The only difference between the boundary- and region-based
networks is how labels are assigned to each pixel. Finally,
fusion of the region- and boundary-based ENets is achieved by
a tertiary ENet that utilizes the output of region- and boundarybased segmentation results. We refer to this architecture as the
Fused-ENet.
C. Post-processing
Fused ENet improves the segmentation results in a number of
ways that includes separation of touch nuclei; however, not all

of the overlapping nuclei are delineated. Therefore, a final postprocessing step is added. Post-processing methods for
separating touching nuclei include but not limited to markerbased watershed [29], gradient flow tracking [30], regularized
centroid transform [31], and geometric reasoning based on
points of maximum curvature [32]. The marker-based
watershed method computes a marker from the minima
computed from the distance transform of the binarized mask
and then applies the watershed method. Gradient flow tracking
and regularized centroid transform are based on modeling
delineation of touching nuclei based on partial differential
equations. Finally, geometric reasoning, based on points of
maximum curvature, partitions the space and generates a set of
hypotheses for decomposing a clumped region. Everyone of
these methods has their advantages and disadvantages. We used
marker-based watershed method because of its computational
simplicity and open source availability.
IV. EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
In this section, we (i) describe the training and testing dataset
and the network parameters setting, and (iii) evaluate the
performance of the proposed model against previous methods.
A. Experimental Set-up
In order to capture technical and biological variations, 32
images consisting of 21 brain of 11 breast histology sections
were hand-annotated, which resulted in approximately 19,000
nuclei. All sections are imaged with a 20X objective with a
pixel size of approximately 0.5 microns. Each image is sampled
to generate 96 non-overlapping patches of the size 360-by-480
for training and testing. This augmented dataset includes
alternative phenotypes of the nuclear signature (e.g., normal,
vesicular, hyperchromatic), which is approximately divided
between the training and testing cohorts (e.g., 50-50). The
training procedure consists of two steps. (I) The region- and
boundary-based models are trained separately. (II) The outputs
of the region- and boundary-based networks were used as the
input to train the fusion network. The same encoder-decoder
architecture was used for all the three networks (i.e., regionbased, boundary-based, and fusion networks). The Adam
optimization algorithm [33] has been used for training, where
the batch size is set at four due to the limitations of the GPU
memory. The learning rate and L2 weight decay are set at 5e-4
and 2e-4, respectively. The dropout method is used to avoid
overfitting.
B. Evaluation
Fused-ENet with postprocessing produces the best
segmentation result, as shown in Table 1, where the
performance of ENet is also evaluated against the multireference graph cut method [13]. Improved performance is the
direct results of simultaneous segmentation of nuclei
morphometry with diverse signatures. In addition, color

TABLE I
COMPARISON FOR NUCLEAR SEGMENTATION BETWEEN ENET (WITHOUT
POSTPROCESSING) AND MULTIREFERENCE GRAPH CUT

Approach
Fused-ENet+CD+Watershed
Fused-ENet+CD
Fused-ENet+RGB
Single ENet+CD+Watershed
Single ENet+CD
Single ENet+RGB+Watershed
Single ENet_RGB
Multi-reference Graphcut

Precision

Recall

F-Score

0.94
0.91
0.82
0.90
0.84
0.84
0.81
0.75

0.88
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.87
0.86
0.78
0.85

0.91
0.89
0.84
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.79
0.79

decomposition enhances the performance further.
Our
experiments indicated that:
(i) ENet enables segmentation of complex nuclear phenotypes,
such as vesicular phenotype, which has been complex to model
using traditional computer vision methods. Figure 3 illustrates
segmentation results with diverse nuclear phenotypes.
(ii) Boundary-based information helps to separate touching or
overlapping nuclei with perceptual boundaries. Delineating of
overlapping nuclei is one of the barriers in nuclear segmentation
for single cell profiling. In our analysis, we selected 16 test
images, where 98 touching nuclei were randomly selected. The
analysis indicates that 62 touching nuclei (e.g., 63.2%
improvement) are correctly separated by fused ENet. The
behavior of the fused ENet for delineating touching nuclei is
shown for two examples in Figure 4.
(iii) Finally, the proposed model is time efficient and capable of
performing instant-based segmentation. The fusion network has
been implemented on a server with a single GPU card. Each
image is of the order of 1k-by-1k, and, on the average, the
processing time for an image of the size 360-by-480 is
approximately 60 ms.
V. CONCLUSION
There are two intrinsic barriers for nuclear segmentation in
H&E stained images. These are (i) the diversity of phenotypes
and (ii) overlapping nuclei that form perceptual boundaries. We
have demonstrated that these two issues can be largely resolved
with the fusion of ENets. In contrast, image-based modeling for
segmentation of alternative phenotypic signatures has been a
challenge using the traditional image analysis methods. Fusion
of ENets is based on integrating learned networks from regionand boundary-based representations. The overall framework
consists of color decomposition, fusion of ENets, and a
postprocessing step. Color decomposition generates a single
relevant gray scale image corresponding to the nuclear dye;
hence, reducing the required number of training samples.
Nuclear segmentation is based on the ENet architecture with the
encoder-decoder layers. The region- and boundary-ENets are
trained to delineate diverse spatial signatures and their

Fig. 3. Qualitative performance of nuclear segmentation is shown for five different phenotypes. Columns (a), (b), and (c) illustrate the original image, ground
truth, and segmentation results of the proposed model, respectively. Rows 1-3, and 4-5 correspond to breast and brain tumor sections, respectively. These
images show large variations in color and phenotypic signatures. More specifically, rows 2-3 show nuclear phenotypes with heterogeneous hematoxylin stain;
and row 4 shows nuclei with vesicular phenotypes.

Fig. 4. Integration of region-based and boundary-based segmentation helps to
separate touching nuclei. (a) shows a few examples of touching and
overlapping nuclei, (b) and (c) are the output probability maps of the regionbased and boundary-based segmentation models, and (d) indicates the output
probability map of the fusion model.

corresponding boundaries. A third ENet is trained to combine
the output of region- and boundary-based networks. We have
shown that nuclei with diverse phenotypic profiles can be
delineated, and, in the majority of cases, overlapping nuclei can
be partitioned. The remainder of the overlapping nuclei is
partitioned with a post-processing step. Intuitively, CNN learns
complex spatial signature and can fill-in missing boundaries.
Segmentation is fast and enables rapid delineating of a large
number of samples for high throughput processing.

Fig.5. Testing and training accuracies are increased as a function of
number of iterations.

[12]

[13]

[14]

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. Hinton, “ImageNet
Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks,” NIPS,
2012.
K. Simonyan, and A. Zisserman, “Very Deep Convolutional
Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition,” ImageNet
Challenge, vol. 6, 2014.
V. Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla, “SegNet: A Deep
Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Architecture for Image
Segmentation,” CoRR, vol. abs/1511.00561, /, 2015.
A. Paszke, A. Chaurasia, S. Kim, and E. Culurciello, “ENet: A Deep
Neural Network Architecture for Real-Time Semantic
Segmentation,” CoRR, vol. abs/1606.02147, /, 2016.
O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional
Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation,” arXiv, 2015.
J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully Convolutional
Networks for Semantic Segmentation,” arXiv, 2015.
F. Xing, and L. Yang, “Robust Nucleus/Cell Detection and
Segmentation in Digital Pathology and Microscopy Images: A
Comprehensive Review,” IEEE Reviews in Biomedical
Engineering, vol. 9, pp. 234-263, 2016.
H. Irshad, A. Veillard, L. Roux, and D. Racoceanu, “Methods for
Nuclei Detection, Segmentation, and Classification in Digital
Histopathology: A Review&#x2014;Current Status and Future
Potential,” IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 7, pp. 97114, 2014.
L. Vincent, “Morphological grayscale reconstruction in image
analysis: applications and efficient algorithms,” IEEE Transactions
on Image Processing, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 176-201, 1993.
L. A. D. Cooper, J. Kong, D. A. Gutman, F. Wang, J. Gao, C. Appin,
S. Cholleti, T. Pan, A. Sharma, L. Scarpace, T. Mikkelsen, T. Kurc,
C. S. Moreno, D. J. Brat, and J. H. Saltz, “Integrated morphologic
analysis for the identification and characterization of disease
subtypes,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics
Association, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 317-323, 2012.
C. WÄHlby, I. M. Sintorn, F. Erlandsson, G. Borgefors, and E.
Bengtsson, “Combining intensity, edge and shape information for

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

2D and 3D segmentation of cell nuclei in tissue sections,” Journal
of Microscopy, vol. 215, no. 1, pp. 67-76, 2004.
S. K. Nath, K. Palaniappan, and F. Bunyak, “Cell Segmentation
Using Coupled Level Sets and Graph-Vertex Coloring,” Medical
image computing and computer-assisted intervention: MICCAI ...
International Conference on Medical Image Computing and
Computer-Assisted Intervention, vol. 9, no. Pt 1, pp. 101-108, 2006.
H. Chang, J. Han, A. Borowsky, L. Loss, J. W. Gray, P. T. Spellman,
and B. Parvin, “Invariant Delineation of Nuclear Architecture in
Glioblastoma Multiforme for Clinical and Molecular Association,”
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 670-682,
2013.
Y. Al-Kofahi, W. Lassoued, W. Lee, and B. Roysam, “Improved
Automatic Detection and Segmentation of Cell Nuclei in
Histopathology Images,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 841-852, 2010.
S. Kothari, J. H. Phan, T. H. Stokes, A. O. Osunkoya, A. N. Young,
and M. D. Wang, “Removing Batch Effects From Histopathological
Images for Enhanced Cancer Diagnosis,” IEEE Journal of
Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 765-772,
2014.
K. Sirinukunwattana, S. E. A. Raza, Y. W. Tsang, D. R. J. Snead, I.
A. Cree, and N. M. Rajpoot, “Locality Sensitive Deep Learning for
Detection and Classification of Nuclei in Routine Colon Cancer
Histology Images,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol.
35, no. 5, pp. 1196-1206, 2016.
Y. Xie, X. Kong, F. Xing, F. Liu, H. Su, and L. Yang, "Deep Voting:
A Robust Approach Toward Nucleus Localization in Microscopy
Images," Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted
Intervention – MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference,
Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III, N.
Navab, J. Hornegger, W. M. Wells and A. F. Frangi, eds., pp. 374382, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
M. Khoshdeli, R. Cong, and B. Parvin, "Detection of nuclei in H&E
stained sections using convolutional neural networks." pp. 105-108.
T. Wan, J. Cao, J. Chen, and Z. Qin, “Automated grading of breast
cancer histopathology using cascaded ensemble with combination
of multi-level image features,” Neurocomputing, vol. 229, pp. 3444, 3/15/, 2017.
H. Su, F. Liu, Y. Xie, F. Xing, S. Meyyappan, and L. Yang, "Region
segmentation in histopathological breast cancer images using deep
convolutional neural network." pp. 55-58.
Y. Song, L. Zhang, S. Chen, D. Ni, B. Lei, and T. Wang, “Accurate
Segmentation of Cervical Cytoplasm and Nuclei Based on
Multiscale Convolutional Network and Graph Partitioning,” IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 24212433, 2015.
X. Pan, L. Li, H. Yang, Z. Liu, J. Yang, L. Zhao, and Y. Fan,
“Accurate segmentation of nuclei in pathological images via sparse
reconstruction and deep convolutional networks,” Neurocomputing,
vol. 229, pp. 88-99, 3/15/, 2017.

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]
[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

F. Xing, Y. Xie, and L. Yang, “An Automatic Learning-Based
Framework for Robust Nucleus Segmentation,” IEEE Transactions
on Medical Imaging, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 550-566, 2016.
W. Li, S. Manivannan, S. Akbar, J. Zhang, E. Trucco, and S. J.
McKenna, "Gland segmentation in colon histology images using
hand-crafted features and convolutional neural networks." pp. 14051408.
Y. Xu, Y. Li, Y. Wang, M. Liu, Y. Fan, M. Lai, and E. Chang,
“Gland Instance Segmentation Using Deep Multichannel Neural
Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. PP,
no. 99, pp. 1-1, 2017.
C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna,
“Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision,”
CoRR, vol. abs/1512.00567, /, 2015.
K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep Residual Learning for
Image Recognition,” arXiv, 2015.
M. Khoshdeli, and B. Parvin, “Feature-based Representation
Improves Color Decomposition and Nuclear Detection Using
Convolutional Neural Network,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1-1, 2017.
M. M. Dundar, S. Badve, G. Bilgin, V. Raykar, R. Jain, O. Sertel,
and M. N. Gurcan, “Computerized classification of intraductal
breast lesions using histopathological images,” IEEE Transactions
on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 1977-1984, 2011.
G. Li, T. Liu, A. Tarokh, J. Nie, L. Guo, A. Mara, S. Holley, and S.
T. C. Wong, “3D cell nuclei segmentation based on gradient flow
tracking,” BMC Cell Biology, vol. 8, pp. 40-40, 09/04, 2007.
Y. Qing, and B. Parvin, “Harmonic cut and regularized centroid
transform for localization of subcellular structures,” IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 469475, 2003.
H. Kong, M. Gurcan, and K. Belkacem-Boussaid, “Partitioning
Histopathological Images: An Integrated Framework for Supervised
Color-Texture Segmentation and Cell Splitting,” IEEE Transactions
on Medical Imaging, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1661-1677, 2011.
D. P. Kingma, and J. Ba, “Adam: A Method for Stochastic
Optimization,” CoRR, vol. abs/1412.6980, /, 2014.

