| Literature DB >> 32477616 |
Sudhir Sornapudi1, Jason Hagerty1,2, R Joe Stanley1, William V Stoecker2, Rodney Long3, Sameer Antani3, George Thoma3, Rosemary Zuna4, Shellaine R Frazier5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automated pathology techniques for detecting cervical cancer at the premalignant stage have advantages for women in areas with limited medical resources.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; convolutional neural network; deep learning; image processing; segmentation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32477616 PMCID: PMC7245344 DOI: 10.4103/jpi.jpi_53_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pathol Inform
Figure 1(a) Digital microscopy image at ×10 magnification with corresponding (b) manually generated mask
Figure 2Epithelium analysis process used in previous research based on a manually segmented epithelium
Figure 3Generation of labels
Figure 4EpithNet architecture
Figure 5Original image split into nr × nc tiles
Figure 6Predicted mask from each tile of original image
Figure 7Postprocessing: (a) clean mask and (b) mask edge smoothing
Figure 8Segmentation contour
Epithelial segmentation
| Generate ( |
| Calculate the respective ground-truth probabilities |
| Initialize weights and bias |
| For i=1: N_epochs, do |
| Forward pass, predict |
| L1 Loss: |
| Backpropagate, |
| Update weights with Adadelta optimizer: |
| End for |
| Save model and weights |
| Load model and weights |
| Pad image: |
| Slice image to p,q subimages, |
| Generate ( |
| Predict the probability of each pixel |
| Combine the predictions to form a gradient mask |
| Upscale the mask by factor of 4 |
| Threshold the mask |
| Smooth the mask edges with quadratic Bezier curve, |
Results on 311 cervical histology test data
| Model | J | DSC | PA | MI | FWI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNet-64 | |||||
| Median | 0.738 | 0.849 | 0.845 | 0.709 | 0.740 |
| Mean | 0.676 | 0.789 | 0.822 | 0.692 | 0.712 |
| SD | 0.190 | 0.160 | 0.116 | 0.153 | 0.154 |
| EpithNet-16 | |||||
| Median | 0.939 | 0.969 | 0.965 | 0.959 | 0.921 |
| Mean | 0.915 | 0.954 | 0.951 | 0.943 | 0.897 |
| SD | 0.070 | 0.043 | 0.045 | 0.049 | 0.081 |
| EpithNet-32 | |||||
| Median | 0.947 | 0.973 | 0.970 | 0.966 | 0.933 |
| Mean | 0.931 | 0.964 | 0.961 | 0.954 | 0.916 |
| SD | 0.049 | 0.028 | 0.029 | 0.037 | 0.059 |
| EpithNet-64 | |||||
| Median | 0.950 | 0.974 | 0.972 | 0.939 | 0.945 |
| Mean | 0.935 | 0.966 | 0.963 | 0.920 | 0.930 |
| SD | 0.049 | 0.028 | 0.032 | 0.062 | 0.054 |
| EpithNet-mc | |||||
| Median | 0.952 | 0.976 | 0.974 | 0.942 | 0.949 |
| Mean | 0.940 | 0.969 | 0.966 | 0.926 | 0.936 |
| SD | 0.041 | 0.023 | 0.026 | 0.052 | 0.046 |
SD: Standard deviation, J: Jaccard index, DSC: Dice score, PA: Pixel accuracy, MI: Mean intersection over union, FWI: Frequency-weighted intersection over union
Figure 9EpithNet-mc architecture
Complexity of baseline, UNet-64, and the proposed models
| Model | UNet-64 | EpithNet-16 | EpithNet-32 | EpithNet-64 | EpithNet-mc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters (×106) | 31.032 | 1.071 | 1.669 | 3.013 | 6.856 |
Figure 10Boxplot of EpithNet-mc model with distribution of the metrics on 311 images. The column parameters from left to right indicate Jaccard index, Dice score, pixel accuracy, mean intersection over union, and frequency-weighted intersection over union. See equations (4)–(8) above with accompanying parameter descriptions
Figure 11Segmentation results. Green contour represents the predicted mask and blue contour represents the ground-truth mask. The blue arrows point to regions where the predicted masks do a better job in segmenting the epithelium regions compared to the manually drawn borders. The red arrows indicate regions of false segmentation