| Literature DB >> 32977795 |
Zini Jian1, Xianpei Wang2, Jingzhe Zhang1, Xinyu Wang3, Youbin Deng3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinically, doctors obtain the left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) mainly by observing ultrasonic echocardiographic video stream to capture a single frame of images with diagnostic significance, and then mark two key points on both sides of the posterior wall of the left ventricle with their own experience for computer measurement. In the actual measurement, the doctor's selection point is subjective, and difficult to accurately locate the edge, which will bring errors to the measurement results.Entities:
Keywords: Convolutional neural network; Deep learning; Diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy; Echocardiography
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32977795 PMCID: PMC7517695 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-020-01255-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Fig. 1Complete processing flow chart
Fig. 2CNN structure
Fig. 3Opening operation schematic. a Original image. b Structural element. c Corrosion process. d Corrosion result. e Opening operation result
Partial training sample pattern
Fig. 4Accuracy change chart
Fig. 5Loss change chart
Fig. 6An echocardiogram based on CNN positioning results
The results of each sample based on convolutional neural networks
| Sample no. | Number of potential Windows after filtering | Coarse positioning time /s | Effective positioning(Y/N) |
|---|---|---|---|
| No.1 | 18 | 11.04 | Y |
| No.2 | 52 | 30.02 | Y |
| No.3 | 43 | 26.86 | Y |
| No.4 | 63 | 38.00 | Y |
| No.5 | 56 | 31.64 | Y |
| No.6 | 29 | 20.92 | Y |
| No.7 | 26 | 15.25 | Y |
| No.8 | 64 | 41.03 | Y |
| No.9 | 94 | 52.66 | Y |
| No.10 | 49 | 32.00 | Y |
Fig. 7Image enhancement effect map. a The rough positioning result. b The non-local median filtering effect. c The effect of NLM filtered target region after opening operation
A sample outline extraction stage renderings
Fig. 8A sample threshold segmentation sampling window. a Schematic diagram of threshold adjustment window selection of lower edge gray value. b Sampling window image c Grayscale image
Fig. 9Comparison of prior analysis and OTSU effects. a Threshold segmentation effect map based on prior in sampling window. b OTSU threshold segmentation effect map based on prior in sampling window
Fig. 10Comparison of processing effects of each algorithm. a Sobel (X/Y, ksize = 11, k = 0.1). b Robert. c Prewitt. d Laplacian (ksize = 5, Gaussian). e Canny. f Algorithm effect diagram of this paper
Statistical measurement results for each sample
| Sample no. | Hospital results | Measurement results | Absolute error /mm | Relative error /% | Measurement time /s | Positioning time /s | Total time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No.1 | 8.43 | 8.90 | 0.47 | 5.58 | 2.46 | 11.04 | 13.50 |
| No.2 | 8.48 | 8.68 | 0.20 | 2.36 | 2.96 | 30.02 | 32.98 |
| No.3 | 10.45 | 8.90 | 1.55 | 14.83 | 2.16 | 26.86 | 29.02 |
| No.4 | 8.27 | 8.55 | 0.28 | 3.39 | 2.13 | 38.00 | 40.13 |
| No.5 | 9.39 | 10.51 | 1.12 | 11.92 | 2.51 | 31.64 | 34.15 |
| No.6 | 10.80 | 10.85 | 0.05 | 0.46 | 2.86 | 20.92 | 23.78 |
| No.7 | 8.93 | 8.00 | 0.93 | 10.41 | 2.80 | 15.25 | 18.05 |
| No.8 | 9.85 | 8.97 | 0.88 | 8.93 | 2.31 | 41.03 | 43.34 |
| No.9 | 10.15 | 9.72 | 0.43 | 4.24 | 2.85 | 52.66 | 55.51 |
| No.10 | 8.74 | 8.82 | 0.08 | 0.92 | 2.18 | 32.00 | 34.18 |
Fig. 11Sample measurement results