Samuel W Remedios1,2,3,4, Snehashis Roy1, Camilo Bermudez5, Mayur B Patel6, John A Butman2, Bennett A Landman4,5,7, Dzung L Pham1,2. 1. Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 3. Department of Computer Science, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA. 4. Department of Electrical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA. 6. Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction & Survivorship (CIBS) Center, Section of Surgical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Emergency General Surgery, & Surgical Critical Care, Nashville, TN, 37212, USA. 7. Department of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As deep neural networks achieve more success in the wide field of computer vision, greater emphasis is being placed on the generalizations of these models for production deployment. With sufficiently large training datasets, models can typically avoid overfitting their data; however, for medical imaging it is often difficult to obtain enough data from a single site. Sharing data between institutions is also frequently nonviable or prohibited due to security measures and research compliance constraints, enforced to guard protected health information (PHI) and patient anonymity. METHODS: In this paper, we implement cyclic weight transfer with independent datasets from multiple geographically disparate sites without compromising PHI. We compare results between single-site learning (SSL) and multisite learning (MSL) models on testing data drawn from each of the training sites as well as two other institutions. RESULTS: The MSL model attains an average dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.690 on the holdout institution datasets with a volume correlation of 0.914, respectively corresponding to a 7% and 5% statistically significant improvement over the average of both SSL models, which attained an average DSC of 0.646 and average correlation of 0.871. CONCLUSIONS: We show that a neural network can be efficiently trained on data from two physically remote sites without consolidating patient data to a single location. The resulting network improves model generalization and achieves higher average DSCs on external datasets than neural networks trained on data from a single source.
PURPOSE: As deep neural networks achieve more success in the wide field of computer vision, greater emphasis is being placed on the generalizations of these models for production deployment. With sufficiently large training datasets, models can typically avoid overfitting their data; however, for medical imaging it is often difficult to obtain enough data from a single site. Sharing data between institutions is also frequently nonviable or prohibited due to security measures and research compliance constraints, enforced to guard protected health information (PHI) and patient anonymity. METHODS: In this paper, we implement cyclic weight transfer with independent datasets from multiple geographically disparate sites without compromising PHI. We compare results between single-site learning (SSL) and multisite learning (MSL) models on testing data drawn from each of the training sites as well as two other institutions. RESULTS: The MSL model attains an average dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.690 on the holdout institution datasets with a volume correlation of 0.914, respectively corresponding to a 7% and 5% statistically significant improvement over the average of both SSL models, which attained an average DSC of 0.646 and average correlation of 0.871. CONCLUSIONS: We show that a neural network can be efficiently trained on data from two physically remote sites without consolidating patient data to a single location. The resulting network improves model generalization and achieves higher average DSCs on external datasets than neural networks trained on data from a single source.
Authors: J L Lancaster; L H Rainey; J L Summerlin; C S Freitas; P T Fox; A C Evans; A W Toga; J C Mazziotta Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 1997 Impact factor: 5.038
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: James Kirkpatrick; Razvan Pascanu; Neil Rabinowitz; Joel Veness; Guillaume Desjardins; Andrei A Rusu; Kieran Milan; John Quan; Tiago Ramalho; Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska; Demis Hassabis; Claudia Clopath; Dharshan Kumaran; Raia Hadsell Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Thijs Kooi; Geert Litjens; Bram van Ginneken; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Clara I Sánchez; Ritse Mann; Ard den Heeten; Nico Karssemeijer Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: N C Andreasen; R Rajarethinam; T Cizadlo; S Arndt; V W Swayze; L A Flashman; D S O'Leary; J C Ehrhardt; W T Yuh Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1996 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: John Muschelli; Natalie L Ullman; W Andrew Mould; Paul Vespa; Daniel F Hanley; Ciprian M Crainiceanu Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Thomas J O'Neill; Yin Xi; Edward Stehel; Travis Browning; Yee Seng Ng; Chris Baker; Ronald M Peshock Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-11-18
Authors: Martina Sollini; Francesco Bartoli; Andrea Marciano; Roberta Zanca; Riemer H J A Slart; Paola A Erba Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Hugo Vrenken; Mark Jenkinson; Dzung L Pham; Charles R G Guttmann; Deborah Pareto; Michel Paardekooper; Alexandra de Sitter; Maria A Rocca; Viktor Wottschel; M Jorge Cardoso; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 9.910