| Literature DB >> 32395530 |
Gaoshuang Liu1, Jie Hua2, Zhan Wu3,4, Tianfang Meng3,4, Mengxue Sun1, Peiyun Huang1, Xiaopu He1, Weihao Sun1, Xueliang Li2, Yang Chen3,4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using deep learning techniques in image analysis is a dynamically emerging field. This study aims to use a convolutional neural network (CNN), a deep learning approach, to automatically classify esophageal cancer (EC) and distinguish it from premalignant lesions.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal cancer (EC); convolutional neural network (CNN); deep learning; endoscopic diagnosis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32395530 PMCID: PMC7210177 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1Sample images of three types using the CNN system. CNN, convolutional neural network. The red boxes indicate location of lesion.
Figure 2Original and preprocessing images.
Figure 3Data augmentation with flipping (B) and mirror (C) in the original image (A).
Figure 4The exemplary architecture of the basic CNN. CNN, convolutional neural network.
Figure 5The basic structure of the Inception-ResNet module.
Figure 6Proposed two-stream structure. The Inception-ResNet is used as the basic CNN structure. The input of the O-stream is the original image, and the input of the P-stream is the preprocessed image. CNN, convolutional neural network.
Size and demographics of the study sample
| Group | Male | Female | Total | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Age (mean) | SD | N | Age (mean) | SD | N | Age (mean) | SD | |||
| Cancer | 140 | 63.4 | 8.8 | 67 | 64.9 | 7.6 | 207 | 63.7 | 8.6 | ||
| Precancer | 178 | 61.1 | 7.5 | 78 | 59.5 | 7.8 | 256 | 60.6 | 7.7 | ||
| Normal | 114 | 45.6 | 15.4 | 171 | 47.5 | 12.9 | 285 | 46.8 | 13.9 | ||
| Total | 432 | 57.8 | 12.8 | 316 | 53.3 | 13.0 | 748 | 56.0 | 13.1 | ||
Figure 7Training curves of the proposed classification approach on the EC database. EC, esophageal cancer.
Statistics distribution from EC database
| Images | Normal | Precancerous lesion | Cancer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train | 1,017 | 424 | 310 | 283 |
| Validation | 126 | 53 | 38 | 35 |
| Test | 129 | 54 | 39 | 36 |
EC, esophageal cancer.
Results of the proposed network and the sub-streams in the EC database
| SEN (%) | SPEC (%) | ACC (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| O-Stream | 98.08 | 85.33 | 66.93 |
| P-Stream | 96.15 | 88.00 | 79.53 |
| Proposed structure | 94.23 | 94.67 | 85.83 |
EC, esophageal cancer; SEN, sensitivity; SPEC, specificity; ACC, accuracy.
Results of the proposed network in the EC database
| Normal | Precancerous lesion | Cancer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | 94.23% | 82.50% | 77.14% |
EC, esophageal cancer; ACC, accuracy.
Figure 8Confusion matrix of the proposed structure in EC database. EC, esophageal cancer.
Comparison of the proposed network with other methods
| SEN (%) | SPEC (%) | ACC (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LBP + SVM | 63.27 | 64.36 | 64.75 |
| HOG + SVM | 57.93 | 59.82 | 60.40 |
| Proposed method | 94.23 | 94.67 | 85.83 |
SEN, sensitivity; SPEC, specificity; ACC, accuracy; LBP, Local Binary Patterns; SVM, Support Vector Machine; HOG, Histogram of Gradient.