| Literature DB >> 31275106 |
Yao Wang1, Danyang Tu2, Jing Du3, Xu Han1, Yawen Sun1, Qun Xu3, Guangtao Zhai2, Yan Zhou1.
Abstract
Deep learning has great potential for imaging classification by extracting low to high-level features. Our aim was to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) with single T2-weighted FLAIR sequence to classify different cognitive performances in patients with subcortical ischemic vascular disease (SIVD). In total, 217 patients with SIVD [including 52 with vascular dementia (VaD), 82 with vascular mild cognitive impairment (VaMCI), and 83 with non-cognitive impairment (NCI)] and 46 matched healthy controls (HCs) underwent MRI scans and neuropsychological assessments. 2D and 3D CNNs were trained to classify VaD, VaMCI, NCI, and HCs based on FLAIR data. For 3D-based model, the loss curves of the training set approached 0.017 after about 20 epochs, while the curves of the testing set maintained at about 0.114. The accuracy of training set and testing set reached 99.7 and 96.9% after about 30 and 35 epochs, respectively. However, the accuracy of the 2D-based model was only around 70%, which performed significantly worse than 3D-based model. This experiment suggests that deep learning is a powerful and convenient method to classify different cognitive performances in SIVD by extracting the shift and scale invariant features of neuroimaging data with single FLAIR sequence. 3D-CNN is superior to 2D-CNN which involves clinical evaluation with MRI multiplanar reformation or volume scanning.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive impairment; convolution neural network; deep learning; magnetic resonsnce imaging; subcortical ischemic vascular disease
Year: 2019 PMID: 31275106 PMCID: PMC6593093 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00627
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Three views of the MRI data with the non-brain tissues (a) and the data without non-brain tissues (b).
FIGURE 2The 3D-shape data before and after preparation.
FIGURE 3The construction of the 3D-based convolutional network we proposed.
Average evaluation metrics of 3D-based convolutional networks compared to the traditional 2D-based convolutional networks.
| Labels | Classifier | Recall | Precision | F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contrast | 2D | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.61 |
| 3D | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.95 | |
| NCI | 2D | 0.59 | 0.54 | 0.56 |
| 3D | 0.93 | 0.9 | 0.91 | |
| MCI | 2D | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.56 |
| 3D | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.93 | |
| Dementia | 2D | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.63 |
| 3D | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.93 |
FIGURE 4The loss curve (A) and the accuracy curve (B) of both 2D- and 3D-based models.