| Literature DB >> 32485986 |
Raluca Brehar1, Delia-Alexandrina Mitrea1, Flaviu Vancea1, Tiberiu Marita1, Sergiu Nedevschi1, Monica Lupsor-Platon2,3, Magda Rotaru3, Radu Ioan Badea2,3.
Abstract
The emergence of deep-learning methods in different computer vision tasks has proved to offer increased detection, recognition or segmentation accuracy when large annotated image datasets are available. In the case of medical image processing and computer-aided diagnosis within ultrasound images, where the amount of available annotated data is smaller, a natural question arises: are deep-learning methods better than conventional machine-learning methods? How do the conventional machine-learning methods behave in comparison with deep-learning methods on the same dataset? Based on the study of various deep-learning architectures, a lightweight multi-resolution Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architecture is proposed. It is suitable for differentiating, within ultrasound images, between the Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC), respectively the cirrhotic parenchyma (PAR) on which HCC had evolved. The proposed deep-learning model is compared with other CNN architectures that have been adapted by transfer learning for the ultrasound binary classification task, but also with conventional machine-learning (ML) solutions trained on textural features. The achieved results show that the deep-learning approach overcomes classical machine-learning solutions, by providing a higher classification performance.Entities:
Keywords: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN); Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC); automatic diagnosis; image processing; pattern recognition; ultrasound images
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32485986 PMCID: PMC7309124 DOI: 10.3390/s20113085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(left) Ultrasound image for which the medical specialist can select a region of interest for which the HCC/PAR confidence is needed; (right) Ground truth area—HCC area inside the large green polygon and PAR on which it has evolved delimited by the red polygon.
Figure 2Generation of HCC and PAR patches of pixels by scanning the marked area and its close exterior.
Ground truth data.
| Dataset | Cases | Annotated Images | HCC Patches | PAR Patches |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GE7 | 200 | 823 | 7930 | 8190 |
| GE9 | 68 | 508 | 5140 | 5200 |
Train/test/validation set configurations.
| Dataset and Class | Train | Train (Augmented) | Test | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GE7 HCC | 5324 | 53,240 | 1586 | 1020 |
| GE7 PAR | 5510 | 55,100 | 1638 | 1042 |
| GE9 HCC | 3312 | 33,120 | 1028 | 800 |
| GE9 PAR | 3360 | 33,600 | 1040 | 800 |
Figure 3HCC patches from dataset GE7.
Figure 4PAR patches from dataset GE7.
Figure 5HCC patches from dataset GE9.
Figure 6PAR patches from dataset GE9.
Figure 7Proposed Multi-Resolution CNN.
Figure 8ASPP [2,39] Module Employed in the Proposed Architecture.
Figure 9Receptive field of classical and dilated convolutions.
Figure 10Variation in volume resolution across the network.
HCC/Cirrhotic parenchyma differentiation: the performance of the proposed CNN multi-resolution method.
| Dataset | Setup | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GE7 Setup 1 | NF1 = 128, NF2 = 64, and NF3 = 32 | 86.94% | 91.75% | 82.2% | 93% |
| NF1 = 64, NF2 = 32, and NF3 = 16 | 84.3% | 87.2% | 82% | 90% | |
| NF1 = 32, NF2 = 16 and NF3 = 8 | 78.6% | 80.5% | 75.3% | 87% | |
| GE7 Setup 2 | NF1 = 16, NF2 = 32, NF3 = 64 | 69.02% | 64.58% | 76.11% | 76% |
| NF1 = 32, NF2 = 64, NF3 = 128 | 70.09% | 67.18% | 73.68% | 75% | |
| NF1 = 64, NF2 = 128, NF3 = 256 | 74.15% | 71.6% | 77.06% | 79% | |
| GE7 Setup 3 | NF1 = NF2 = NF3 = 32 | 80.33% | 84.27% | 72.92% | 86% |
| NF1 = NF2 = NF3 = 64 | 88.2% | 89.44% | 86% | 92% | |
| NF1 = NF2 = NF3 = 128 | 91% | 94.37% | 88.38% | 95% | |
| GE9 Setup 1 | NF1 = 128, NF2 = 64, and NF3 = 32 | 82.8% | 84.5% | 81.13% | 89% |
| NF1 = 64, NF2 = 32, and NF3 = 16 | 80.10% | 79.77% | 80.46% | 86% | |
| NF1 = 32, NF2 = 16 and NF3 = 8 | 79.74% | 79.11% | 80.46% | 87% | |
| GE9 Setup 2 | NF1 = 16, NF2 = 32, NF3 = 64 | 77.66% | 76.25% | 79.4% | 84% |
| NF1 = 32, NF2 = 64, NF3 = 128 | 79.63% | 81.16% | 78.12% | 85% | |
| NF1 = 64, NF2 = 128, NF3 = 256 | 82.45% | 82.48% | 82.42% | 90% | |
| GE9 Setup 3 | NF1 = NF2 = NF3 = 32 | 76.79% | 78.24% | 72.58% | 82% |
| NF1 = NF2 = NF3 = 64 | 82.63% | 81.12% | 80.42% | 88% | |
| NF1 = NF2 = NF3 = 128 | 84.84% | 86.79% | 82.95% | 91% |
Figure 11GE7 ROC for CNN Methods.
Figure 12GE9 ROC for CNN Methods.
Results obtained using transfer learning.
| Dataset | Method | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ge7 | VGGNet [ | 79.46% | 77.21% | 78.8% | 84% |
| ResNet [ | 79.34% | 78.66% | 81.10% | 85% | |
| InceptionNet [ | 82% | 84.3% | 80% | 89% | |
| DenseNet [ | 79.46% | 79.79% | 79.17% | 87% | |
| SqueezeNet [ | 79.53% | 83.24% | 76.77% | 86% | |
| Proposed method | 91% | 94.37% | 88.38% | 95% | |
| Ge9 | VGGNet [ | 76.38% | 78.21% | 74.8% | 83% |
| ResNet [ | 75.26% | 78.11% | 72.37% | 82% | |
| InceptionNet [ | 80.39% | 81.63% | 79% | 86% | |
| DenseNet [ | 75.44% | 74.24% | 77.15% | 83% | |
| SqueezeNet [ | 74.32% | 75.22% | 73.22% | 82% | |
| Proposed method | 84.84% | 86.79% | 82.95% | 91% |
HCC/PAR differentiation for dataset GE7: the performance of the traditional classifiers before and after feature selection.
| Dataset | Method | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GE7 | Before feature selection | ||||
| SMO (poly 1) | 68.5% | 77% | 60% | 68.5% | |
| MLP | 52.75% | 57.5% | 48% | 55.5% | |
| RF | 62.5% | 75% | 49.5% | 60.9% | |
| AdaBoost + J48 | 60.75% | 68% | 53.5% | 57.8% | |
| GE7 | After feature selection | ||||
| SMO (poly 1) | 68.75% | 77% | 60% | 68.5% | |
| MLP | 57% | 20% | 94% | 46% | |
| RF | 59% | 72% | 46% | 60.7% | |
| AdaBoost + J48 | 63.75% | 78% | 49.5% | 68% | |
| GE7 | No feature selection | ||||
| AdaBoost + GLCM + LBP [ | 69.5% | 75% | 64% | 73.5% | |
| SVM + GLCM + LBP [ | 64.5% | 64% | 65% | 69% | |
| GE7 | Proposed CNN | 91% | 94.37% | 88.38% | 95% |
HCC/PAR differentiation for dataset GE9: the performance of the traditional classifiers before and after feature selection.
| Dataset | Method | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GE9 | Before feature selection | ||||
| SMO (poly 1) | 62.5% | 72.2% | 52.8% | 62.5% | |
| MLP | 58.2% | 76% | 40.4% | 59.8% | |
| RF | 58.55% | 62.7% | 54.4% | 63% | |
| AdaBoost + J48 | 55.2% | 49.8% | 60.6% | 60.3% | |
| GE9 | After feature selection | ||||
| SMO (poly 1) | 63.86% | 73.1% | 54.7% | 63.9% | |
| MLP | 58.99% | 70.7% | 47.4% | 61.5% | |
| RF | 56.93% | 52.4% | 61.5% | 61.7% | |
| AdaBoost + J48 | 56.93% | 52.4% | 61.5% | 61.7% | |
| GE9 | No feature selection | ||||
| AdaBoost + GLCM + LBP [ | 66% | 67% | 65.7% | 72% | |
| SVM + GLCM + LBP [ | 65% | 61.5% | 69% | 71% | |
| GE9 | Proposed CNN | 84.84% | 86.79% | 82.95% | 91% |
Figure 13Accuracy comparison among various approaches for classifying hepatocellular carcinomavs cirrhotic parenchyma in dataset GE7.
Figure 14Accuracy comparison among various approaches for classifying hepatocellular carcinomavs cirrhotic parenchyma in dataset GE9.
Figure 15Input image (left), ground truth with HCC area enclosed in yellow polygon (middle), predicted confidence map in which HCC likelihood of a patch is marked in red and the PAR high confidence is marked in green.