| Literature DB >> 33129343 |
Kishore Rajagopalan1, Suresh Babu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A proposed computer aided detection (CAD) scheme faces major issues during subtle nodule recognition. However, radiologists have not noticed subtle nodules in beginning stage of lung cancer while a proposed CAD scheme recognizes non subtle nodules using x-ray images.Entities:
Keywords: Accuracy; Lung cancer; Sensitivity; Subtle; X-ray
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33129343 PMCID: PMC7602294 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-020-01220-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Lung cancer standardised one, five and 10 year net survival (2013–2017)
| Sex | Years after diagnosis | Number of cases | Net surivival (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 1 year | 85,270.0 | 44.5 |
| Male | 1 year | 98,357.0 | 37.1 |
| Persons | 1 year | 183,627.0 | 40.6 |
| Female | 5 years | 85,270.0 | 19.0 |
| Male | 5 years | 98,357.0 | 13.8 |
| Persons | 5 years | 183,627.0 | 16.2 |
| Female | 10 years | 134,006.0 | 11.3 |
| Male | 10 years | 157,189.0 | 7.6 |
| Persons | 10 years | 291,195.0 | 9.5 |
Allotment of nodules in the JRST database based on nodule size
| Size(mm) categories | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small | Medium | Large | ||
| Tremendouslysubtle | 2 | 18 | 5 | 25 (16.2%) |
| Very subtle | 3 | 16 | 10 | 29 (18.8%) |
| subtle | 4 | 29 | 17 | 50 (32.5%) |
| Relatively observable | 1 | 20 | 17 | 38 (24.7%) |
| observable | 0 | 5 | 7 | 12 (7.8%) |
| Benign | 7 | 34 | 13 | 54 |
| Malignant | 3 | 54 | 43 | 100 |
Fig. 1Existing computer aided detection scheme
Fig. 2ROC Curve
Features extorted using existing computer aided detection scheme
| S.No. | Extorted feature |
|---|---|
| 1 | Contrast value |
| 2 | Correlation value |
| 3 | Energy value |
| 4 | Homogeneity value |
| 5 | Gray level |
| 6 | Mean |
| 7 | Standard Deviation |
| 8 | Entropy |
| 9 | Circularity |
| 10 | Uniformity |
| 11 | Smoothness of the intensity |
| 12 | Skewness of the histogram |
| 13 | Area |
| 14 | Perimeter |
Fig. 3Proposed computer aided detection scheme
Fig. 4Creation of MANN based soft tissue technique
Feature Extortion
| S. No | Feature Extortion | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | can.u | Co-ordinates of a nodule candidate(horizontal) |
| 2 | can.v | Co-ordinates of a nodule candidate(vertical) |
| 3 | can.Grad1 | Co-ordinates of a nodule likelihood values |
| 4 | can.CV1 | Computed by using gray level values |
| 5 | can.Grad2 | Co-ordinates of a nodule likelihood values |
| 6 | can.CV2 | Computed by using gray level values |
| 7 | Shape1 | Area for a segmented nodule candidate(Aregion) |
| 8 | Shape2 | Short and long axes of an ellipse which are robust to nodule candidate |
| 9 | Shape3 | Aregion/Aconvex hull |
| 10 | Shape4 | [dcandidate- center /squarero ot(Shape1/Л)] |
| 11 | Gray1 | μregion – μsurround The gray-level feature was estimated using fragmented candidates and their surrounding regions in both pre-processed image and nodule-enhanced image. A surrounding region was constructed by subtracting a candidate region from a dilated candidate region. μregion➔ Mean of a region μsurround➔Mean of a surrounding region |
| 12 | Gray2 | σregion- σsurround σregion➔Standard deviation of a region σsurround➔Standard deviation of a surrounding region |
| 13 | Gray3 | minregion-minsurround minregion➔ Minimum value of a region minsurround➔Minimum value of a surrounding region |
| 14 | Gray4 | maxregion-maxsurround maxregion ➔ Maximum value of a region maxsurround➔Maximum value of a surrounding region |
| 15 | Gray5 | Calculated using Gray1 |
| 16 | Gray6 | Calculated using Gray2 |
| 17 | Gray7 | Calculated using Gray3 |
| 18 | Gray8 | Calculated using Gray4 |
| 19 | Grad1 | where Nh is number of pixels in segmented candidate area h and cos αmn denotes likelihood values used in two stage nodule enhancement method |
| 20 | Grad2 | |
| 21 | Grad3 | |
| 22 | Surface1 | λmin Segmented candidate area in nodule enhanced image was robust to fourth order bivariate polynomial. The principal curvatures was computed at highest elevation point in the candidate region. |
| 23 | Surface2 | λmax |
| 24 | Surface3 | λmin λmax |
| 25 | Texture1 | ∑ [C(i,j)2] ij C(i,j) ➔Co-occurrence matrix computed over neighboring pixel and a summation range from minimum to maximum pixel value in pre-processed image |
| 26 | Texture2 | ∑ (i-j)2C(i,j)2 ij C(i,j) ➔Co-occurrence matrix calculated over neighboring pixels and a summation range from the minimum to the maximum pixel value in the pre-processed image. |
| 27 | Texture3 | Calculated based on Texture1 and Texture2 |
| 28 | Texture4 | Calculated based on Texture1 and Texture2 |
| 29 | Texture5 | Calculated based on Texture1 and Texture2 |
| 30 | Texture6 | Calculated based on Texture1 and Texture2 |
| 31 | False Positive | Loverlap / Lregion Where Lregion is length of boundary of a candidate area and Loverlap is number of pixels on boundary that overlap edge chain. |
Fig. 5Rib contrasts vs sensitivity
Fig. 6Sensitivity vs number of false positive per image
Features values from x-ray and soft tissue image using proposed computer aided detection scheme
| Feature Extortion | Values in x-ray image | Values in soft tissue image |
|---|---|---|
| can.u | 6 | 7 |
| can.v | 7.5 | 8.5 |
| can.Grad1 | 4.5 | 5.5 |
| can.CV1 | 0.65 | 0.75 |
| can.Grad2 | 6.7 | 7.7 |
| can.CV2 | 7.2 | 8.2 |
| Shape1 | 7 | 8 |
| Shape2 | 6.6 | 7.6 |
| Shape3 | 4.5 | 5.5 |
| Shape4 | 5.8 | 6.8 |
| Gray1 | 7 | 8 |
| Gray2 | 8.2 | 9.2 |
| Gray3 | 8.4 | 9.4 |
| Gray4 | 9.2 | 8.2 |
| Gray5 | 7 | 8 |
| Gray6 | 8.2 | 9.2 |
| Gray7 | 8.4 | 9.4 |
| Gray8 | 9.2 | 9.2 |
| Grad1 | 37 | 47 |
| Grad2 | 30 | 40 |
| Grad3 | 1.23 | 1.175 |
| Surface1 | 25 | 35 |
| Surface2 | 27 | 37 |
| Surface3 | 675 | 1295 |
| Texture1 | 30 | 40 |
| Texture2 | 32 | 42 |
| Texture3 | 34 | 44 |
| Texture4 | 36 | 46 |
| Texture5 | 38 | 48 |
| Texture6 | 40 | 50 |
| False Positive | 2.5 | 1 |
Performance comparison of several existing computer aided detection systems which used JSRT Database
| Author | Sensitivity | FPs/image | Methodology | Classifier | Database |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wei et al. [ | 80% (123/154) | 5.4 (1333/247) (less accuracy due to high FPs) | Forward stepwise selection | Fisher linear discriminant | All abnormal as well as normal image inside JSRT(247) |
| Coppini et al. [ | 60% (93/154) | 4.3 (662/154) | Neural network filter | Fisher linear discriminant | All nodule image in JSRT(154) |
| Schilham et al. [ | 51% (79/154) 67% (103/154) | 2 (308/154) 4 (616/154) | Image filtering Based on Regression | Fisher linear discriminant | All nodule image in JSRT(154) |
| Hardie et al. [ | 80% (112/140) 63% (88/140) | 5.0 (700/140) 2 (280/140) | Active shape model and new weighted multi- scale conver gence-index | Fisher linear discriminant | Nodule image in JSRT(140) |
| Chen et al. [ | 71% (100/140) | 2 (466/233) | Computer aided detection using neural filter | Support Vector Machine (SVM) | Nodule and Normal image in JSRT(233) |
| Proposed MANN based soft tissue technique | 72.85% (102/140) | 1 (233/233) | MANN for rib suppression | Support Vector Machine (SVM) | Nodule and normal image in JSRT(233) |