| Literature DB >> 32661341 |
Mousumi Roy1, Fusheng Wang2,3, Hoang Vo1, Dejun Teng1, George Teodoro4, Alton B Farris5, Eduardo Castillo-Leon6, Miriam B Vos6,7, Jun Kong8,9,10,11.
Abstract
Hepatic steatosis droplet quantification with histology biopsies has high clinical significance for risk stratification and management of patients with fatty liver diseases and in the decision to use donor livers for transplantation. However, pathology reviewing processes, when conducted manually, are subject to a high inter- and intra-reader variability, due to the overwhelmingly large number and significantly varying appearance of steatosis instances. This process is challenging as there is a large number of overlapped steatosis droplets with either missing or weak boundaries. In this study, we propose a deep-learning-based region-boundary integrated network for precise steatosis quantification with whole slide liver histopathology images. The proposed model consists of two sequential steps: a region extraction and a boundary prediction module for foreground regions and steatosis boundary prediction, followed by an integrated prediction map generation. Missing steatosis boundaries are next recovered from the predicted map and assembled from adjacent image patches to generate results for the whole slide histopathology image. The resulting steatosis measures both at the pixel level and steatosis object-level present strong correlation with pathologist annotations, radiology readouts and clinical data. In addition, the segregated steatosis object count is shown as a promising alternative measure to the traditional metrics at the pixel level. These results suggest a high potential of artificial intelligence-assisted technology to enhance liver disease decision support using whole slide images.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32661341 PMCID: PMC7502534 DOI: 10.1038/s41374-020-0463-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lab Invest ISSN: 0023-6837 Impact factor: 5.662
Figure 1.The DELINEATE Model. The DELINEATE model first identifies regions and boundaries of steatosis droplets individually (A). The resulting two output predictions are combined for generating an integrated prediction map where the clumped steatosis regions are separated. The region extraction module detects steatosis regions with a dil-Unet module (B). The steatosis boundary detection module is based on a Holistically-Nested Network (HNN) (C). The region-boundary integration network generates the final prediction output from the integrated region and boundary information (D).
Comprehensive performance comparison of steatosis segmentation methods.
| Models | Approach | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Object wise | Object wise | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | FCN | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.8338 | 3.8521 | |||
| Models | DeepLab V2 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.9083 | 5.3179 | |||
| dil-Unet + HNN + FCN-8s | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.9492 | 3.4591 | ||||
| dil-Unet + HNN + FCN-4s | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.9480 | 3.5753 | ||||
| Variations of | Unet + HNN + FCN-4s | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.9489 | 3.4685 | |||
| Our Models | dil-Unet + HNN + dil-FCN | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.9459 | 3.6658 | |||
| Unet + Unet + Unet | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.9247 | 5.8289 | ||||
| Unet + Unet + FCN-8s | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.9458 | 3.8773 | ||||
Figure 5.(A) Whole tissue steatosis prediction. (a) a low resolution whole slide liver image containing multiple tissue components; (b) one complete tissue component extracted at a low resolution; (c) the highest resolution tissue component extracted after rotation and interpolation; (d) steatosis regions and the boundary masks in the complete tissue component detected by DELINEATE model; (e-f): close-up views of two representative tissue regions in purple rectangles in (d). (B) Block diagram of steatosis quantification in whole slide liver tissue images. It consists of high resolution tissue component extraction, overlapped tissue region partitioning, steatosis segmentation by DELINEATE model, and patch-wise steatosis segmentation assembled by MaReIA. (C) Steatosis segmentation assembled by different methods. (a) typical four adjacent non-overlapping patches; (b) steatosis segmentation with simple concatenation; (c) close-up views of steatosis droplets with simple concatenation; (d) overlapping patches; (e) steatosis segmentation assembled by MaReIA; and (f) close-up views of assembled steatosis droplets by our proposed MaReIA.
Figure 2.Comparison of segmentation results. Comparison of segmentation results between dil-Unet and the standard U-Net model (A). Left: original images; Middle: steatosis segmentation by U-Net model; Right: steatosis segmentation by the proposed dil-Unet model. By contrast, dil-Unet can recover steatosis regions with a substantially improved accuracy. Comparison of results from the DELINEATE model (B). Top-Left: input image; Top-Right: output from the region extraction module; Bottom-Left: output from the boundary detection module; and Bottom-Right: final output of the integration module. “1” labels the false positive steatosis region captured by the region prediction module, and “2” labels the corrected steatosis regions by the final integration module.
Figure 3.Visualization of segmented steatosis droplets in masks of distinct colors. From left to right column: original image, ground truth, results from FCN, DeepLab V2, U-Net+U-Net+U-Net (one variation of our proposed model), and dil-Unet+HNN+FCN-8s (proposed DELINEATE model), respectively. The clumped steatosis regions indicated by black boxes in all images are well separated by DELINEATE model but failed by other methods in the comparison study. Additionally, problematic regions in green boxes are only fully recovered by DELINEATE model.
Correlation coefficients and p-values are presented for pairwise correlations using steatosis measures, results of a gold standard histology review, and manual fat readout from MRI images. Steatosis measures include DELINEATE Steatosis Pixel% (DSP%), DELINEATE Steatosis Count% (DSC%) and Aperio Steatosis Pixel% (ASP%), respectively.
| Correlation Measure | DSP % (p-value) | DSC %(p-value) | ASP % (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macrovesicular steatosis% | 0.85(<0.001) | 0.90(<0.001) | 0.83(<0.001) |
| Total steatosis% | 0.85(<0.001) | 0.90(<0.001) | 0.84(<0.001) |
| MRI fat readout | 0.85(<0.001) | 0.82(<0.001) | 0.83(<0.001) |
| Aperio Pixel% | 0.94(<0.001) | 0.91(<0.001) | - |
Figure 4.Pair-wise scatter plots with correlation coefficients (p-values) are illustrated for DELINEATE Steatosis Count% (DSC%) at individual droplet level and manual macrovesicular steatosis measures (A); manual total steatosis measures (B); manual fat readout from MRI images (C). We applied Mann-Whitney test to DSC% measures between Lobular Inflammation presence and absence (D); and between NAFL (i.e. Non-NASH) and NASH (E), respectively. We applied ANOVA to DSC% measurements of tissue samples among four manually graded histological steatosis percentage groups with p-value less than 5.25e−14 (F).
Mean, median, and range of DELINEATE Steatosis Pixel% (DSP%), DELINEATE Steatosis Count% (DSC%), and Aperio Steatosis Pixel% (ASP%) are presented with the associated p-values of Mann-Whitney test.
| Steatosis Measure | Lobular Inflammation | Diagnosis | Overall | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absent | Present | p-Value | NAFL | NASH | p-Value | |||
| DSP% | Mean(SD) | 5.24 (7.01) | 12.1 (8.20) | 0.036 | 8.75 (7.75) | 17.0 (7.64) | 0.010 | 10.6 (8.38) |
| Min, Median, Max | 0.538, 2.15, 21.5 | 0.300, 12.6, 27.4 | 0.300, 7.34, 26.2 | 2.20, 17.4, 27.4 | 0.300, 8.49, 27.4 | |||
| DSC% | Mean (SD) | 1.37e-3 (1.43e-3) | 2.72e-3 (1.52e-3) | 0.030 | 2.08e-3 (1.54e-3) | 3.62e-3 (1.11e-3) | 0.010 | 2.42e-3 (1.58e-3) |
| Min, Median, Max | 2.89e-4, 8.64e-4, 4.55e-3 | 1.84e-4, 2.76e-3, 5.08e-3 | 1.84e-4, 1.84e-3, 5.08e-3 | 1.72e-3, 3.9e-3, 4.9e-3 | 1.84e-4, 2.37e-3, 5.08e-3 | |||
| ASP% | Mean(SD) | 10.1 (8.04) | 16.5 (9.51) | 0.070 | 13.1 (8.72) | 22.2 (9.12) | 0.020 | 15.1 (9.49) |
| Min, Median, Max | 1.88, 9.57, 27.1 | 0.641, 18.1, 31.5 | 0.641, 11.9, 31.5 | 1.84, 24.2, 30.9 | 0.641, 13.5, 31.5 | |||
ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test with liver tissue steatosis measures across four manually annotated steatosis percentage groups with p-values adjusted by the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The adjusted p-value for DELINEATE Steatosis Pixel% (DSP%), DELINEATE Steatosis Count% (DSC%) and Aperio Steatosis Pixel% (ASP%) are shown in column 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
| Statistical Test | DSP% | DSC% | ASP% |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANOVA | 7.86e-09 | 5.25e-14 | 3.37e-09 |
| <5% vs 5%−33% | 0.005 | 0.25 | 0.69 |
| <5% vs 33%−66% | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 |
| 5%−33% vs 33%−66% | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.005 |
| <5% vs >66% | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 5%−33% vs >66% | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 33%−66% vs >66% | 0.01 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
Performance of DELINEATE Steatosis Pixel% (DSP%), DELINEATE Steatosis Count% (DSC%), and Aperio Steatosis Pixel%, (ASP%) for differentiation of patient groups of steatosis grades by pathologist assessment.
| Steatosis Measure | Steatosis Grade | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 vs 1–3 | 0–1 vs 2–3 | 0–2 vs 3 | ||
| DSP% | Threshold | 1.26 | 7.34 | 11.91 |
| AUROC (95% CI) | 0.992 (0.971–1.00) | 0.977 (0.938–1.00) | 0.930 (0.851–1.00) | |
| Sensitivity | 96.80% | 91.30% | 92.30% | |
| Specificity | 100% | 100% | 82.60% | |
| Accuracy | 97% | 94% | 86% | |
| DSC% | Threshold | 0.0004145 | 0.0018375 | 0.002755 |
| AUROC (95% CI) | 0.977 (0.928–1.00) | 0.990 (0.970–1.00) | 0.983 (0.954–1.00) | |
| Sensitivity | 96.80% | 91.30% | 100% | |
| Specificity | 100% | 100% | 91.30% | |
| Accuracy | 97% | 94% | 94% | |
| ASP% | Threshold | 7.45 | 11.89 | 13.48 |
| AUROC (95% CI) | 0.922 (0.819–1.00) | 0.957 (0.883–1.00) | 0.946 (0.880–1.00) | |
| Sensitivity | 81.25% | 91.30% | 100% | |
| Specificity | 100% | 100% | 78.20% | |
| Accuracy | 83% | 94% | 86% | |