Johannes Hofmanninger1, Forian Prayer2, Jeanny Pan2, Sebastian Röhrich2, Helmut Prosch2, Georg Langs3. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel, 18-20, Vienna, Austria. johannes.hofmanninger@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel, 18-20, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel, 18-20, Vienna, Austria. georg.langs@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automated segmentation of anatomical structures is a crucial step in image analysis. For lung segmentation in computed tomography, a variety of approaches exists, involving sophisticated pipelines trained and validated on different datasets. However, the clinical applicability of these approaches across diseases remains limited. METHODS: We compared four generic deep learning approaches trained on various datasets and two readily available lung segmentation algorithms. We performed evaluation on routine imaging data with more than six different disease patterns and three published data sets. RESULTS: Using different deep learning approaches, mean Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) on test datasets varied not over 0.02. When trained on a diverse routine dataset (n = 36), a standard approach (U-net) yields a higher DSC (0.97 ± 0.05) compared to training on public datasets such as the Lung Tissue Research Consortium (0.94 ± 0.13, p = 0.024) or Anatomy 3 (0.92 ± 0.15, p = 0.001). Trained on routine data (n = 231) covering multiple diseases, U-net compared to reference methods yields a DSC of 0.98 ± 0.03 versus 0.94 ± 0.12 (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and reliability of lung segmentation algorithms on demanding cases primarily relies on the diversity of the training data, highlighting the importance of data diversity compared to model choice. Efforts in developing new datasets and providing trained models to the public are critical. By releasing the trained model under General Public License 3.0, we aim to foster research on lung diseases by providing a readily available tool for segmentation of pathological lungs.
BACKGROUND: Automated segmentation of anatomical structures is a crucial step in image analysis. For lung segmentation in computed tomography, a variety of approaches exists, involving sophisticated pipelines trained and validated on different datasets. However, the clinical applicability of these approaches across diseases remains limited. METHODS: We compared four generic deep learning approaches trained on various datasets and two readily available lung segmentation algorithms. We performed evaluation on routine imaging data with more than six different disease patterns and three published data sets. RESULTS: Using different deep learning approaches, mean Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) on test datasets varied not over 0.02. When trained on a diverse routine dataset (n = 36), a standard approach (U-net) yields a higher DSC (0.97 ± 0.05) compared to training on public datasets such as the Lung Tissue Research Consortium (0.94 ± 0.13, p = 0.024) or Anatomy 3 (0.92 ± 0.15, p = 0.001). Trained on routine data (n = 231) covering multiple diseases, U-net compared to reference methods yields a DSC of 0.98 ± 0.03 versus 0.94 ± 0.12 (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and reliability of lung segmentation algorithms on demanding cases primarily relies on the diversity of the training data, highlighting the importance of data diversity compared to model choice. Efforts in developing new datasets and providing trained models to the public are critical. By releasing the trained model under General Public License 3.0, we aim to foster research on lung diseases by providing a readily available tool for segmentation of pathological lungs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Algorithms; Deep learning; Lung; Reproducibility of results; Tomography (x-ray computed)
Authors: Michal Sofka; Jens Wetzl; Neil Birkbeck; Jingdan Zhang; Timo Kohlberger; Jens Kaftan; Jérôme Declerck; S Kevin Zhou Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2011
Authors: Liang-Chieh Chen; George Papandreou; Iasonas Kokkinos; Kevin Murphy; Alan L Yuille Journal: IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 6.226
Authors: Ahmed Soliman; Fahmi Khalifa; Ahmed Elnakib; Mohamed Abou El-Ghar; Neal Dunlap; Brian Wang; Georgy Gimel'farb; Robert Keynton; Ayman El-Baz Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Fumin Guo; Matthew Ng; Maged Goubran; Steffen E Petersen; Stefan K Piechnik; Stefan Neubauer; Graham Wright Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Adam Szmul; Edward Chandy; Catarina Veiga; Joseph Jacob; Alkisti Stavropoulou; David Landau; Crispin T Hiley; Jamie R McClelland Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Guillaume Cazoulat; Brian M Anderson; Molly M McCulloch; Bastien Rigaud; Eugene J Koay; Kristy K Brock Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Andrej Romanov; Michael Bach; Shan Yang; Fabian C Franzeck; Gregor Sommer; Constantin Anastasopoulos; Jens Bremerich; Bram Stieltjes; Thomas Weikert; Alexander Walter Sauter Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-04-21
Authors: João O B Diniz; Darlan B P Quintanilha; Antonino C Santos Neto; Giovanni L F da Silva; Jonnison L Ferreira; Stelmo M B Netto; José D L Araújo; Luana B Da Cruz; Thamila F B Silva; Caio M da S Martins; Marcos M Ferreira; Venicius G Rego; José M C Boaro; Carolina L S Cipriano; Aristófanes C Silva; Anselmo C de Paiva; Geraldo Braz Junior; João D S de Almeida; Rodolfo A Nunes; Roberto Mogami; M Gattass Journal: Multimed Tools Appl Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Michael Osadebey; Hilde K Andersen; Dag Waaler; Kristian Fossaa; Anne C T Martinsen; Marius Pedersen Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 1.930