Markus Wenzel1, Fausto Milletari2,3, Julia Krüger4, Catharina Lange5, Michael Schenk6, Ivayla Apostolova6, Susanne Klutmann6, Marcus Ehrenburg7, Ralph Buchert8. 1. Fraunhofer Institute for Medical Image Computing MEVIS, Bremen, Germany. 2. Computer Aided Medical Procedures & Augmented Reality, Technical University Munich, München, Germany. 3. Nvidia, Los Angeles, USA. 4. Jung diagnostics, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 6. Department for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 7. Pinax Pharma, Bad Liebenwerda, Germany. 8. Department for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. r.buchert@uke.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the potential of deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) for automatic classification of FP-CIT SPECT in multi-site or multi-camera settings with variable image characteristics. METHODS: The study included FP-CIT SPECT of 645 subjects from the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI), 207 healthy controls, and 438 Parkinson's disease patients. SPECT images were smoothed with an isotropic 18-mm Gaussian kernel resulting in 3 different PPMI settings: (i) original (unsmoothed), (ii) smoothed, and (iii) mixed setting comprising all original and all smoothed images. A deep CNN with 2,872,642 parameters was trained, validated, and tested separately for each setting using 10 random splits with 60/20/20% allocation to training/validation/test sample. The putaminal specific binding ratio (SBR) was computed using a standard anatomical ROI predefined in MNI space (AAL atlas) or using the hottest voxels (HV) analysis. Both SBR measures were trained (ROC analysis, Youden criterion) using the same random splits as for the CNN. CNN and SBR trained in the mixed PPMI setting were also tested in an independent sample from clinical routine patient care (149 with non-neurodegenerative and 149 with neurodegenerative parkinsonian syndrome). RESULTS: Both SBR measures performed worse in the mixed PPMI setting compared to the pure PPMI settings (e.g., AAL-SBR accuracy = 0.900 ± 0.029 in the mixed setting versus 0.957 ± 0.017 and 0.952 ± 0.015 in original and smoothed setting, both p < 0.01). In contrast, the CNN showed similar accuracy in all PPMI settings (0.967 ± 0.018, 0.972 ± 0.014, and 0.955 ± 0.009 in mixed, original, and smoothed setting). Similar results were obtained in the clinical sample. After training in the mixed PPMI setting, only the CNN provided acceptable performance in the clinical sample. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide proof of concept that a deep CNN can be trained to be robust with respect to variable site-, camera-, or scan-specific image characteristics without a large loss of diagnostic accuracy compared with mono-site/mono-camera settings. We hypothesize that a single CNN can be used to support the interpretation of FP-CIT SPECT at many different sites using different acquisition hardware and/or reconstruction software with only minor harmonization of acquisition and reconstruction protocols.
PURPOSE: This study investigated the potential of deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) for automatic classification of FP-CIT SPECT in multi-site or multi-camera settings with variable image characteristics. METHODS: The study included FP-CIT SPECT of 645 subjects from the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI), 207 healthy controls, and 438 Parkinson's diseasepatients. SPECT images were smoothed with an isotropic 18-mm Gaussian kernel resulting in 3 different PPMI settings: (i) original (unsmoothed), (ii) smoothed, and (iii) mixed setting comprising all original and all smoothed images. A deep CNN with 2,872,642 parameters was trained, validated, and tested separately for each setting using 10 random splits with 60/20/20% allocation to training/validation/test sample. The putaminal specific binding ratio (SBR) was computed using a standard anatomical ROI predefined in MNI space (AAL atlas) or using the hottest voxels (HV) analysis. Both SBR measures were trained (ROC analysis, Youden criterion) using the same random splits as for the CNN. CNN and SBR trained in the mixed PPMI setting were also tested in an independent sample from clinical routine patient care (149 with non-neurodegenerative and 149 with neurodegenerative parkinsonian syndrome). RESULTS: Both SBR measures performed worse in the mixed PPMI setting compared to the pure PPMI settings (e.g., AAL-SBR accuracy = 0.900 ± 0.029 in the mixed setting versus 0.957 ± 0.017 and 0.952 ± 0.015 in original and smoothed setting, both p < 0.01). In contrast, the CNN showed similar accuracy in all PPMI settings (0.967 ± 0.018, 0.972 ± 0.014, and 0.955 ± 0.009 in mixed, original, and smoothed setting). Similar results were obtained in the clinical sample. After training in the mixed PPMI setting, only the CNN provided acceptable performance in the clinical sample. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide proof of concept that a deep CNN can be trained to be robust with respect to variable site-, camera-, or scan-specific image characteristics without a large loss of diagnostic accuracy compared with mono-site/mono-camera settings. We hypothesize that a single CNN can be used to support the interpretation of FP-CIT SPECT at many different sites using different acquisition hardware and/or reconstruction software with only minor harmonization of acquisition and reconstruction protocols.
Authors: N Tzourio-Mazoyer; B Landeau; D Papathanassiou; F Crivello; O Etard; N Delcroix; B Mazoyer; M Joliot Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Geert Litjens; Thijs Kooi; Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi; Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio; Francesco Ciompi; Mohsen Ghafoorian; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Bram van Ginneken; Clara I Sánchez Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Francisco P M Oliveira; Diogo Borges Faria; Durval C Costa; Miguel Castelo-Branco; João Manuel R S Tavares Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-12-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: John C Dickson; Livia Tossici-Bolt; Terez Sera; Jan Booij; Morten Ziebell; Silvia Morbelli; Susanne Assenbaum-Nan; Thierry Vander Borght; Marco Pagani; Ozlem L Kapucu; Swen Hesse; Koen Van Laere; Jacques Darcourt; Andrea Varrone; Klaus Tatsch Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: John T O'Brien; Wolfgang H Oertel; Ian G McKeith; Donald G Grosset; Zuzana Walker; Klaus Tatsch; Eduardo Tolosa; Paul F Sherwin; Igor D Grachev Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Franziska Mathies; Ivayla Apostolova; Lena Dierck; Janin Jacobi; Katja Kuen; Markus Sauer; Michael Schenk; Susanne Klutmann; Attila Forgács; Ralph Buchert Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 3.434