| Literature DB >> 29544777 |
Eli Gibson1, Wenqi Li2, Carole Sudre3, Lucas Fidon4, Dzhoshkun I Shakir4, Guotai Wang4, Zach Eaton-Rosen3, Robert Gray5, Tom Doel4, Yipeng Hu3, Tom Whyntie3, Parashkev Nachev5, Marc Modat3, Dean C Barratt1, Sébastien Ourselin4, M Jorge Cardoso3, Tom Vercauteren4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medical image analysis and computer-assisted intervention problems are increasingly being addressed with deep-learning-based solutions. Established deep-learning platforms are flexible but do not provide specific functionality for medical image analysis and adapting them for this domain of application requires substantial implementation effort. Consequently, there has been substantial duplication of effort and incompatible infrastructure developed across many research groups. This work presents the open-source NiftyNet platform for deep learning in medical imaging. The ambition of NiftyNet is to accelerate and simplify the development of these solutions, and to provide a common mechanism for disseminating research outputs for the community to use, adapt and build upon.Entities:
Keywords: Convolutional neural network; Deep learning; Generative adversarial network; Image regression; Medical image analysis; Segmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29544777 PMCID: PMC5869052 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.01.025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed ISSN: 0169-2607 Impact factor: 5.428
Fig. 1Data flow implemented in typical deep learning projects. Boxes represent the software infrastructure to be developed and arrows represent the data flow.
Fig. 2A brief overview of NiftyNet components.
Fig. 3TensorBoard visualization of a NiftyNet generative adversarial network. TensorBoard interactively shows the composition of conceptual blocks (rounded rectangles) and their interconnections (grey lines) and color-codes similar blocks. Above, the generator and discriminator blocks and one of the discriminator’s residual blocks are expanded. Font and block sizes were edited for readability.
Median segmentation metrics for 8 organs aggregated over the 9-fold cross-validation.
| Dice score | Relative volume difference | Mean absolute distance (voxels) | 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (voxels) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spleen | 0.94 | 0.03 | 1.07 | 2.00 |
| L. Kidney | 0.93 | 0.04 | 1.06 | 3.00 |
| Gallbladder | 0.79 | 0.17 | 1.55 | 4.41 |
| Esophagus | 0.68 | 0.57 | 2.05 | 6.00 |
| Liver | 0.95 | 0.02 | 1.42 | 4.12 |
| Stomach | 0.87 | 0.09 | 2.06 | 8.88 |
| Pancreas | 0.75 | 0.19 | 1.93 | 7.62 |
| Duodenum | 0.62 | 0.24 | 3.05 | 12.47 |
Fig. 4Reference standard (left) and NiftyNet (right) multi-organ abdominal CT segmentation for the subject with Dice scores closest to the median. Each segmentation is shown with a surface rendering view from the posterior direction and with organ labels overlaid on a transverse CT slice.
The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Mean Error (ME) between the ground truth and the pseudoCT in Hounsfield units, comparing the NiftyNet method with pCT [7] and the UTE-based method of the Siemens Biograph mMR.
| NiftyNet | pCT | UTE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | Average | 88 | 121 | 203 |
| S.D | 7.5 | 17 | 24 | |
| ME | Average | 9.1 | ||
| S.D. | 12 | 23 | 34 |
Fig. 5The input T1 MRI image (left), the ground truth CT (centre) and the NiftyNet regression output (right).
Fig. 6Interpolated images from the generative model space based on linearly interpolated model parameters. The top row shows a smooth variation between different amounts of ultrasound shadow artefacts. The bottom row shows a sharp transition suggesting the presence of mode collapse in the generative model.