| Literature DB >> 30766599 |
Liyong Ma1, Chengkuan Ma1, Yuejun Liu2, Xuguang Wang3.
Abstract
Thyroid disease has now become the second largest disease in the endocrine field; SPECT imaging is particularly important for the clinical diagnosis of thyroid diseases. However, there is little research on the application of SPECT images in the computer-aided diagnosis of thyroid diseases based on machine learning methods. A convolutional neural network with optimization-based computer-aided diagnosis of thyroid diseases using SPECT images is developed. Three categories of diseases are considered, and they are Graves' disease, Hashimoto disease, and subacute thyroiditis. A modified DenseNet architecture of convolutional neural network is employed, and the training method is improved. The architecture is modified by adding the trainable weight parameters to each skip connection in DenseNet. And the training method is improved by optimizing the learning rate with flower pollination algorithm for network training. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method of convolutional neural network is efficient for the diagnosis of thyroid diseases with SPECT images, and it has superior performance than other CNN methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30766599 PMCID: PMC6350547 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6212759
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The proposed thyroid SPECT diagnosis method.
Figure 2Image samples in the dataset.
Figure 3The improved dense block replaces all the features with trainable parameters for concatenation.
Figure 4The CNN architecture of the proposed thyroid SPECT diagnosis method.
Figure 5The improved dense block architecture of the proposed thyroid SPECT diagnosis method.
Figure 6Pseudocode of flower pollination algorithm used for updating learning rate.
Grave's disease class performance comparison of different methods (percent).
| Network | DenseNet121 | ResNet101 | InceptionV3 | VGG19 | MVGG | GoogleNet | SDAE | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | 95.17 | 93.83 | 88.50 | 89.00 | 89.50 | 90.83 | 92.33 |
|
| Precision | 98.11 | 98.57 | 90.15 | 91.44 | 91.95 | 91.91 | 94.22 |
|
| Accuracy | 98.33 | 97.63 | 94.71 | 95.17 | 95.42 | 95.71 | 96.67 |
|
| Specificity | 99.39 | 98.89 | 96.78 | 97.22 | 97.39 | 97.33 | 98.11 |
|
| F1 score | 96.62 | 95.18 | 89.32 | 90.20 | 90.71 | 91.37 | 93.27 |
|
Hashimoto disease class performance comparison of different methods (percent).
| Network | DenseNet121 | ResNet101 | InceptionV3 | VGG19 | MVGG | GoogleNet | SDAE | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | 97.17 | 96.50 | 92.33 | 91.67 | 90.33 | 93.17 | 94.50 |
|
| Precision | 95.57 | 94.92 | 90.67 | 91.21 | 91.71 | 91.49 | 93.41 |
|
| Accuracy | 98.17 | 97.83 | 95.71 | 95.71 | 95.54 | 96.13 | 96.96 |
|
| Specificity | 98.50 | 98.28 | 96.83 | 97.06 | 97.28 | 97.11 | 97.78 |
|
| F1 score | 96.37 | 95.70 | 91.49 | 91.44 | 91.02 | 92.32 | 93.95 |
|
Subacute disease class performance comparison of different methods (percent).
| Network | DenseNet121 | ResNet101 | InceptionV3 | VGG19 | MVGG | GoogleNet | SDAE | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | 98.17 | 97.33 | 89.17 | 94.00 | 92.50 | 92.83 | 95.33 |
|
| Precision | 96.88 | 96.21 | 93.04 | 94.31 | 90.54 | 96.20 | 93.77 |
|
| Accuracy | 98.75 | 98.38 | 95.63 | 97.08 | 95.71 | 97.29 | 97.25 |
|
| Specificity | 98.94 | 98.72 | 97.78 | 98.11 | 96.78 | 98.78 | 97.89 |
|
| F1 score | 97.52 | 96.77 | 91.06 | 94.16 | 91.51 | 94.49 | 94.55 |
|
Normal class performance comparison of different methods (percent).
| Network | DenseNet121 | ResNet101 | InceptionV3 | VGG19 | MVGG | GoogleNet | SDAE | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.50 | 99.17 | 96.83 | 100.00 | 96.33 |
|
| Precision | 100.00 | 100.00 | 95.52 | 96.75 | 94.93 | 97.24 | 97.14 |
|
| Accuracy | 100.00 | 100.00 | 98.71 | 98.96 | 97.92 | 99.29 | 98.38 |
|
| Specificity | 100.00 | 100.00 | 98.44 | 98.89 | 98.28 | 99.06 | 99.06 |
|
| F1 score | 100.00 | 100.00 | 97.47 | 97.94 | 95.87 | 98.60 | 96.74 |
|
Figure 7Average precision curve with different iteration numbers.
Figure 8Confusion matrix comparison.