| Literature DB >> 30134902 |
Chunli Qin1,2, Demin Yao1,2, Yonghong Shi3,4, Zhijian Song5,6.
Abstract
As the most common examination tool in medical practice, chest radiography has important clinical value in the diagnosis of disease. Thus, the automatic detection of chest disease based on chest radiography has become one of the hot topics in medical imaging research. Based on the clinical applications, the study conducts a comprehensive survey on computer-aided detection (CAD) systems, and especially focuses on the artificial intelligence technology applied in chest radiography. The paper presents several common chest X-ray datasets and briefly introduces general image preprocessing procedures, such as contrast enhancement and segmentation, and bone suppression techniques that are applied to chest radiography. Then, the CAD system in the detection of specific disease (pulmonary nodules, tuberculosis, and interstitial lung diseases) and multiple diseases is described, focusing on the basic principles of the algorithm, the data used in the study, the evaluation measures, and the results. Finally, the paper summarizes the CAD system in chest radiography based on artificial intelligence and discusses the existing problems and trends.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Chest radiography; Computer-aided detection; Disease classification
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30134902 PMCID: PMC6103992 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-018-0544-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 1Eight common diseases such infiltration, atelectasis, cardiac hypertrophy, effusion, lumps, nodules, pneumonia, and pneumothorax observed in the chest radiographs
Segmentation methods in chest X-ray. The datasets, methods, assessment measures, and segmentation results are provided in each column, respectively
| Study | Datasets | Assessment measures | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image progressing based methods | Cheng et al. [ | Custom | Accuracy | |
| Armato et al. [ | Custom (600) | Subjectively assessed the accuracy and completeness of the contour | Up to 79.1% (score 4 or 5) and 8.1% inaccurate (score 1 or 2) | |
| Li et al. [ | Custom (40) | Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity | Left lung: 95.2% accuracy, 91% sensitivity, 96.5% specificity; right lung: 96% accuracy, 91.1% sensitivity, 97.2% specificity | |
| Iakovidis et al. [ | Custom (24) | Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity | 95.3% sensitivity, 94.3% specificity | |
| Wan et al. [ | JSRT Custom (154) | Accuracy, overlap scores, precision, sensitivity, specificity, and F score | Accuracy, F value, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were higher than 90%; the JSRT dataset overlap score was 87%; the overlap rate of the custom datasets (standard machines) was 81% and (mobile machines) is 69% | |
| Van Ginneken et al. [ | Custom (230) | Overlap scores | Left lung: 0.887 ± 0.114; right lung: 0.929 ± 0.026 | |
| Machine learning based methods | Mcnittgray et al. [ | Custom (33) | Accuracy | NN: 76%; LDA: 70%; KNN: 70% |
| Vittitoe et al. [ | Custom (198) | Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy | Sensitivity: 0.907 ± 0.044; specificity: 0.972 ± 0.022; accuracy: 0.948 ± 0.016 | |
| Shi et al. [ | JSRT (52) | Accuracy | 0.978 ± 0.0213 | |
| Novikov et al. [ | JSRT | Dice coefficient, jaccard coefficient | Lung: 97.4%, 95%; collarbone: 92.9%, 86.8%; heart: 93.7%, 88.2% | |
| Dai et al. [ | JSRT, MC | Intersection-over-union | Both lungs: 94:7% ± 0:4%, heart: 86:6% ± 1:2% |
Accuracy: (TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN); sensitivity: R = TP/(TP + FN); specificity: TN/(TN + FP); overlap scores: TP/(TP + FP + FN); precision (or positive predictive value): P = TP/(TP + FP); F score: 2 × P × R/(P + R); intersection-over-union: IoU = TP/(TP + FP + FN); negative precision: TN/(TN + FN); false accept rate: FAR = FP/(FP + TN); false rejection rate: FRR = FN/(TP + FN); where TP, TN, FP, and FN represent true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative, respectively
Dice coefficient: DSC = 2 × (|S∩GT|)/(|S| + |GT|, jaccard coefficient of concordance: JS = (|S∩GT|)/(|S∪GT|), where S is segmentation result, GT is the ground truth
Pulmonary nodule detection. The datasets, assessment measures, and detection results are provided in each column, respectively
| Study | Datasets | Assessment measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wei et al. [ | JSRT | AUC | 85% |
| Schiham et al. [ | JSRT | Average sensitivity under FP/image | 2 FP/image: 51%; 4 FP/image: 67% |
| Shiraishi et al. [ | Custom (924) | Average sensitivity under FP/image | 5.05 FP/image: 70.1%; |
| Chen et al. [ | JSRT | Average sensitivity under FP/image | 5 FP/image: JSRT, 78.6%; Custom, 83.3% |
| Hardie et al. [ | Custom (167) | Average sensitivity under FP/image | 4 FP/image: sensitivity 78.1% |
| Ogul et al. [ | JSRT | Average sensitivity under FP/image | JSRT: 6.4 FP/image, 80% |
| Bush. [ | JSRT | Sensitivity and specificity | Sensitivity: 92%; specificity: 86% |
| Wang et al. [ | JSRT | Average sensitivity and specificity under FP/image | 1.19 FP/image: sensitivity 69.27%; specificity 96.02%; |
FP/image means specific false positives per image. AUC denotes area under the receiver operating characteristic curve
Tuberculosis detection. The datasets, manifestations, assessment measures and results are shown in each column, respectively
| Study | Datasets | Manifestations | Assessment measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rohmah et al. [ | Custom (120) | Tuberculosis | Accuracy, false accept rate, false rejection rate | 95.7%, 3.33%, 6.67% |
| Tan et al. [ | Custom (95) | Tuberculosis | Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, AUC, precision | 92.9%, 91%, 95.4%, 92.8%, 94.9% |
| Noor et al. [ | TPR (100) | Tuberculosis | Accuracy | 94% |
| Song et al. [ | Custom (200) | Focal opacities | Accuracy | |
| Shen et al. [ | Custom (243) | Cavities | True positive rate (or sensitivity) under FP/image | 0.237 FP/image: 82.35% |
| Xu et al. [ | Custom | Cavities | Densitivity, specificity, and accuracy | E-Group: 78.8%, 86.8%, 82.8%; D-Group: 69.4%, 81.6%, 75.5% |
| Hwang et al. [ | KIT, MC, Shenzhen | Tuberculosis | AUC, accuracy, positive precision, negative precision | 96.4%, 90.3%, 95.3%, 97.4% |
| Lakhani et al. [ | Shenzhen | Tuberculosis | AUC, sensitivity, and specificity | 99%, 97.3%, 100% |
Multiple disease detection. The datasets, manifestations, assessment measures and results are shown in each column, respectively
| Study | Datasets | Conditions | Measurements | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avni et al. [ | Custom | Left and right pulmonary pleural effusion, cardiomegaly, and septum enlargement | AUC | Left and right pulmonary pleural effusion: 80%; cardiomegaly: 79.2%; septum enlargement: 88.2% |
| Noor et al. [ | Custom | Lobar pneumonia, tuberculosis, and lung cancer | Accuracy | 70%, 97%, and 79%, respectively |
| Bar et al. [ | Custom | Right pleural effusion, cardiomegaly, health, and abnormal disease | AUC | 93%, 89%, and 79%, respectively |
| Cicero et al. [ | Custom | Normal, cardiomegaly, pleural effusion, pulmonary edema, and pneumothorax | AUC | 96.4%, 87.5%, 85%, 96.2%, 86.8%, and 86.1%, respectively |
| Wang et al. [ | Chest-Xray14 | 14 common diseases in CXRs | AUC | Mean: 73.8% |
| Yao et al. [ | Chest-Xray14 | 14 common diseases in CXRs | AUC | Mean: 80.3%; however, limited training focuses on biased interdependence and cannot accurately represent the actual distribution of morbidities |
| Rajpurkar et al. [ | Chest-Xray14 | 14 common diseases in CXRs | AUC | Mean: 84.2%; pneumonia (76.8%) exceeded the human level |
| Kumar et al. [ | Chest-Xray14 | 14 common diseases in CXRs | AUC | Mean: 79.5%; cardiomegaly (91.33%) beyond the previous method |
| Guan et al. [ | Chest-Xray14 | 14 common diseases in CXRs | AUC | Mean: 87.1% |
Comparison of classification methods for thoracic diseases. The classification methods, measurements, and best results in the review are shown in each column, respectively
| Methods | Measurements | Best results | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional machine learning methods | Maharanobis distance [ | AUC | Lung nodules: 85% |
| KNN [ | Sensitivity | Lung nodules 4FP/image: 67% | |
| ANN [ | Sensitivity | Lung nodules 5.05FP/image: 70.1% | |
| SVM [ | Sensitivity, accuracy | Lung nodules: sensitivity 5FP/image: 83.3% | |
| Fisher linear discriminant [ | Sensitivity | Lung nodules 4FP/image: 78.1% | |
| Minimum distance [ | Accuracy | Tuberculosis: 95.7% | |
| Decision tree [ | Accuracy | Tuberculosis: 94.9% | |
| Bayesian classifier [ | Sensitivity | Tuberculosis: 0.237 FP/image: 82.35% | |
| Traditional machine learning methods + CNN | CNN transfer learning + SVM [ | AUC | Right pleural effusion: 93% |
| AlEXNET transfer learning + random forests [ | Sensitivity, specificity | Lung nodules: 1.19FP/image: sensitivity 69.27%, specificity 96.02% | |
| Deep learning methods | RESNET transfer learning [ | Sensitivity | Lung nodules: sensitivity 92%, specificity 86% |
| CNN transfer learning [ | AUC, accuracy | Tuberculosis: 96.4%, 90.3% | |
| CNN [ | Sensitivity, accuracy, AUC, specificity | Cardiomegaly: 93%, 97%, 94%, 92% | |
| GoogleNet CNN [ | AUC | Cardiomegaly: 87.5%, pneumothorax: 86.1%, pleural effusion: 96.2%, pulmonary edema: 86.8% |
Comparison of multiple label classification methods for thoracic diseases. The classification methods, measurements, and best results in the review are shown in each column, respectively
| Methods | Thoracic diseases | Measurements | Best results |
|---|---|---|---|
| RESNET [ | Atelectasis, cardiomegaly effusion, infiltration, mass, nodule, pneumonia, pneumothorax, consolidation, edema, emphysema, fibrosis, pleural thickening hernia | AUC | Respectively, 71.6%, 80.7%, 78.4%, 60.9%, 70.6%, 67.1%, 63.3%, 80.6%, 70.8%, 83.5%, 81.5%, 76.9%, 70.8%, 76.7% |
| LSTM + DENSENET [ | AUC | Respectively, 77.2%, 90.4%, 85.9%, 69.5%, 79.2%, 71.7%, 71.3%, 84.1%, 78.8%, 88.2%, 82.9%, 76.7%, 76.5%, 91.4% | |
| ChexNet [ | AUC | Respectively, 82.1%, 90.5%, 88.3%, 72.0%, 86.2%, 77.7%, 76.3%, 89.3%, 79.4%, 89.3%, 92.6%, 80.4%, 81.4%, 93.9% | |
| Cascade deep learning network based on DENSENET [ | AUC | Respectively, 76.2%, 91.3%, 86.4%, 69.2%, 78.9%, 70.4%, 71.5%, 85.9%, 78.4%, 88.8%, 91.6%, 75.6%, 77.4%, 89.8% | |
| Attention guided CNN [ | AUC | Respectively, 85.3%, 93.9%, 90.3%, 75.4%, 90.2%, 82.8%, 77.4%, 92.1%, 84.2%, 92.4%, 93.2%, 86.4%, 83.7%, 92.1% |