| Literature DB >> 30396344 |
Ga Young Kim1, Ju Hwan Lee2, Yoo Na Hwang1, Sung Min Kim3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is a commonly used diagnostic imaging method for coronary artery disease. Virtual histology (VH) characterizes the plaque components into fibrous tissue (FT), fibro-fatty tissue (FFT), necrotic core (NC), or dense calcium (DC). However, VH can obtain only a single-frame image in one cardiac cycle, and specific software is needed to obtain the radio frequency data. This study proposed a novel intensity-based multi-level classification model for plaque characterization.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30396344 PMCID: PMC6219028 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-018-0586-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Total feature set obtained in the process of feature extraction
| Feature set | Feature | Feature set | Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOS | Mean Variance Standard deviation Kurtosis Skewness | LEM | MSS S5S5 MSS R5S5/S5R5 MSS R5R5 MAS E5L5/L5E5 MAS S5L5/L5S5 MAS R5L5/L5R5 MAS E5E5 MAS S5E5/E5S5 MAS R5E5/E5R5 MAS S5S5 MAS R5S5/S5R5 MAS R5R5 |
| GLCM | Autocorrelation Contrast Cluster prominence Cluster shade Dissimilarity Energy Entropy Homogeneity Maximum probability Variance Sum average Sum variance Sum entropy Difference variance Difference entropy Information measure of correlation Normalized inverse difference moment | ||
| Intensity | Intensity | ||
| GLRLM | Short run emphasis Long run emphasis Grey level nonuniformity Run length nonuniformity Run percentage Low grey level run emphasis High grey level run emphasis Short run low grey level run emphasis Short run high grey level run emphasis Long run low grey level run emphasis Long run high grey level run emphasis | ||
| LEM | MSS E5L5/L5E5 MSS S5L5/L5S5 MSS R5L5/L5R5 MSS E5E5 MSS S5E5/E5S5 MSS R5E5/E5R5 | ||
| LBP | Basic LBP Uniform LBP |
Fig. 1Histogram for the components of plaque (a fibrous tissue, b fibro-fatty tissue, c necrotic core, and d dense calcium)
Fig. 2Process of the intensity-based multi-level classification
Selected feature set for net 1
| Feature set | Feature | Feature set | Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOS | Mean Variance Standard deviation | LEM | MSS S5E5/E5S5 MSS R5E5/E5R5 MSS S5S5 MSS R5S5/S5R5 MAS E5L5/L5E5 MAS S5L5/L5S5 MAS R5L5/L5R5 MAS E5E5 MAS S5E5/E5S5 MAS R5E5/E5R5 MAS S5S5 |
| GLCM | Autocorrelation Variance Sum average | ||
| LEM | MSS E5L5/L5E5 MSS S5L5/L5S5 MSS R5L5/L5R5 MSS E5E5 |
Selected feature set for net 2
| Feature set | Feature | Feature set | Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOS | Mean | LEM | MSS R5L5/L5R5 MSS R5R5 MAS E5L5/L5E5 MAS S5L5/L5S5 MAS R5L5/L5R5 MAS R5S5/S5R5 MAS R5R5 |
| GLCM | Autocorrelation Variance Sum average Sum variance | ||
| LEM | MSS E5L5/L5E5 MSS S5L5/L5S5 | ||
| Intensity | Intensity |
Selected feature set for net 3
| Feature set | Feature | Feature set | Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOS | Mean | LEM | MSS R5S5/S5R5 MSS R5R5 MAS E5L5/L5E5 MAS S5L5/L5S5 MAS R5L5/L5R5 MAS S5S5 MAS R5S5/S5R5 MAS R5R5 |
| GLCM | Autocorrelation Variance Sum average Sum variance | ||
| LEM | MSS E5L5/L5E5 MSS S5L5/L5S5 MSS R5L5/L5R5 MSS S5E5/E5S5 | ||
| Intensity | Intensity |
Classification results of the proposed method
| Net | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net 1 | 82.0 | 87.1 | 85.1 | 0.845 |
| Net 2 | 81.2 | 59.6 | 71.9 | 0.704 |
| Net 3 | 80.6 | 75.9 | 77.2 | 0.783 |
Classification results of net 1 according to different feature selection methods
| Selection method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| w/o selection | 82.0 | 86.9 | 85.0 | 0.845 |
| GA | 81.9 | 86.9 | 84.9 | 0.844 |
| PCA | 82.0 | 87.1 | 85.1 | 0.845 |
Classification results of net 2 according to different feature selection methods
| Selection method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| w/o selection | 80.8 | 60.1 | 71.9 | 0.705 |
| GA | 80.8 | 59.7 | 71.7 | 0.703 |
| PCA | 81.2 | 59.6 | 71.9 | 0.704 |
Classification results of net 3 according to different feature selection methods
| Selection method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| w/o selection | 80.4 | 75.2 | 76.7 | 0.778 |
| GA | 80.2 | 75.8 | 76.6 | 0.780 |
| PCA | 80.6 | 75.9 | 77.2 | 0.783 |
Classification results of net 1 according to different classifiers
| Classification method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNN | 79.4 | 86.5 | 84.0 | 0.829 |
| FFNN | 78.0 | 87.5 | 84.2 | 0.827 |
| Proposed method | 82.0 | 87.1 | 85.1 | 0.845 |
Classification results of net 2 according to different classifiers
| Classification method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNN | 2.1 | 99.9 | 44.1 | 0.510 |
| FFNN | 81.3 | 57.9 | 71.2 | 0.696 |
| Proposed method | 81.2 | 59.6 | 71.9 | 0.704 |
Classification results of net 3 according to different classifiers
| Classification method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNN | 79.2 | 79.9 | 77.5 | 0.780 |
| FFNN | 78.5 | 76.0 | 76.7 | 0.772 |
| Proposed method | 80.6 | 75.9 | 77.2 | 0.783 |