| Literature DB >> 28070212 |
Wei Li1, Peng Cao1, Dazhe Zhao1, Junbo Wang2.
Abstract
Computer aided detection (CAD) systems can assist radiologists by offering a second opinion on early diagnosis of lung cancer. Classification and feature representation play critical roles in false-positive reduction (FPR) in lung nodule CAD. We design a deep convolutional neural networks method for nodule classification, which has an advantage of autolearning representation and strong generalization ability. A specified network structure for nodule images is proposed to solve the recognition of three types of nodules, that is, solid, semisolid, and ground glass opacity (GGO). Deep convolutional neural networks are trained by 62,492 regions-of-interest (ROIs) samples including 40,772 nodules and 21,720 nonnodules from the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) database. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in terms of sensitivity and overall accuracy and that it consistently outperforms the competing methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28070212 PMCID: PMC5192289 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6215085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1The main components in a general CAD system (a) and the main components in our work (b).
Figure 2Architecture of our CNN for nodule recognition. The input data is ROI image pixels as a 1024-dimensional vector, and the number of output neurons of the network is 2 (nodule: 1 and nonnodule: 0). The numbers of neurons in the other layers are set to 6272, 1568, 1600, 250, 150, 100, and 50.
Performance for CF-test and DD-test.
| TID | Accuracy | Sensitivity | FP/exam |
| Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 0.855 | 0.855 | 4.276 | 0.870 | 5,236 |
| T2 | 0.849 | 0.866 |
| 0.858 | 28,761 |
| T3 | 0.857 | 0.871 | 4.459 | 0.864 | 19,302 |
| T4 |
|
| 5.546 |
| 19,993 |
| T5 | 0.843 | 0.871 | 5.540 | 0.857 | 21,920 |
Figure 3The classification performance with respect to error and accuracy with iteration number.
Figure 4The learning rate changes in training process.
Comparison of studies on nodule detection.
| Work | Database | Cases | Sensitivity (%) | FP/exam |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed method | LIDC | 1010 | 87.1 | 4.622 |
| Netto et al. [ | LIDC | 29 | 85.9 | 0.138 |
| Pei et al. [ | LIDC | 30 | 100 | 8.4 |
| Pu et al. [ | LIDC | 52 | 81.5 | 6.5 |
| Namin et al. [ | LIDC | 63 | 88.0 | 10.3 |
| Messay et al. [ | LIDC | 84 | 82.66 | 3 |