| Literature DB >> 33495661 |
Kelei He1,2, Wei Zhao3, Xingzhi Xie3, Wen Ji2,4, Mingxia Liu5, Zhenyu Tang6, Yinghuan Shi2,4, Feng Shi7, Yang Gao2,4, Jun Liu3,8, Junfeng Zhang1,2, Dinggang Shen7,7,9,10.
Abstract
Understanding chest CT imaging of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will help detect infections early and assess the disease progression. Especially, automated severity assessment of COVID-19 in CT images plays an essential role in identifying cases that are in great need of intensive clinical care. However, it is often challenging to accurately assess the severity of this disease in CT images, due to variable infection regions in the lungs, similar imaging biomarkers, and large inter-case variations. To this end, we propose a synergistic learning framework for automated severity assessment of COVID-19 in 3D CT images, by jointly performing lung lobe segmentation and multi-instance classification. Considering that only a few infection regions in a CT image are related to the severity assessment, we first represent each input image by a bag that contains a set of 2D image patches (with each cropped from a specific slice). A multi-task multi-instance deep network (called M 2 UNet) is then developed to assess the severity of COVID-19 patients and also segment the lung lobe simultaneously. Our M 2 UNet consists of a patch-level encoder, a segmentation sub-network for lung lobe segmentation, and a classification sub-network for severity assessment (with a unique hierarchical multi-instance learning strategy). Here, the context information provided by segmentation can be implicitly employed to improve the performance of severity assessment. Extensive experiments were performed on a real COVID-19 CT image dataset consisting of 666 chest CT images, with results suggesting the effectiveness of our proposed method compared to several state-of-the-art methods.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; CT; Lung lobe segmentation; Multi-instance learning; Severity assessment
Year: 2021 PMID: 33495661 PMCID: PMC7816595 DOI: 10.1016/j.patcog.2021.107828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pattern Recognit ISSN: 0031-3203 Impact factor: 7.740
Fig. 1Typical cases of two non-severe (left) and two severe (right) patients with COVID-19, where infections often occur in small regions of the lungs in CT images. The similar imaging biomarkers (e.g., ground glass opacities, mosaic sign, air bronchogram and interlobular septal thickening) of both cases (denoted by red boxes) make the non-severe and severe images difficult to distinguish. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 2Visualization of three typical cases in the COVID-19 CT image dataset from three different views. As shown in this figure, large inter-case variations (e.g., image size and spatial resolution) exist in CT images of COVID-19 patients.
Fig. 3Illustration of the proposed framework for joint lung lobe segmentation and severity assessment of COVID-19 in 3D CT images. Each raw 3D CT image is first pre-processed, and multiple 2D image patches (with each patch from a specific slice) are then extracted to construct an instance bag for representing each input CT scan. This bag is then fed into the proposed multi-task multi-instance UNet (MUNet) for joint lung lobe segmentation and severity assessment of COVID-19, consisting of a shared patch-level encoder, a segmentation sub-network, and a classification sub-network for severity assessment. Here, the segmentation task can provide location and tissue guidance for the task of severity assessment that employs a hierarchical multi-instance learning strategy.
Network architecture of the proposed MUNet. The network has three main components: 1) a encoding module containing five encoding blocks; 2) a classification sub-network containing the embedding-level MIL and image-level MIL, and a classifier; and 3) a segmentation sub-network consisting of a decoding module with five decoding blocks. MIL: multi-instance learning; Num.: Number of layers, K: kernel size; PAD: padding size; STR: stride; #: Number of learnable parameters; cov: convolution; GCP: global contrast pooling; concat: concatenation.
| Block Name | Num. | Layers | Parameter Setting | Input | # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Encoding block 1 | 2 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | 2D image patches | |
| Pool 1 | 1 | max-pooling | K: { | Encoding block 1 | - |
| Encoding block 2 | 2 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | Pool 1 | |
| Pool 2 | 1 | max-pooling | K: { | Encoding block 2 | - |
| Encoding block 3 | 2 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | Pool 2 | |
| Pool 3 | 1 | max-pooling | K: { | Encoding block 3 | - |
| Encoding block 4 | 2 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | Pool 3 | |
| Pool 4 | 1 | max-pooling | K: { | Encoding block 4 | - |
| Encoding block 5 | 1 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | Pool 4 | |
| 1 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | |||
| Embedding-Level MIL | 1 | GCP | Num. Concepts: 256 | Encoding block 5 | |
| 1 | conv | K: { | |||
| Image-Level MIL | 1 | GCP | Num. Concepts: 128 | Embedding-Level MIL | |
| 1 | conv | K: { | |||
| Classifier | 1 | conv | K: { | Image-Level MIL | |
| Decoding block 5 | 1 | {up-sample, conv, batchnorm, ReLU, concat} | K: { | Encoding block 5 | |
| Decoding block 4 | 1 | {up-sample, conv, batchnorm, ReLU, concat} | K: { | Decoding block 5 | |
| 2 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | Encoding block 3 | ||
| Decoding block 3 | 1 | {up-sample, conv, batchnorm, ReLU, concat} | K: { | Decoding block 4 | |
| 2 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | Encoding block 2 | ||
| Decoding block 2 | 1 | {up-sample, conv, batchnorm, ReLU, concat} | K: { | Decoding block 3 | |
| 2 | {conv, batchnorm, ReLU} | K: { | Encoding block 1 | ||
| Decoding block 1 | 1 | conv | K: { | Decoding block 2 |
Fig. 4A brief illustration of the learning principle for the proposed global contrast pooling (GCP) layer. Here, the concepts denote to-be-learned features that are discriminative for severity assessment. The GCP layer is designed to pull the relevant instance features and concepts closer, and push the irrelevant instance features and concepts away from each other.
Quantitative comparison for severity assessment tasks with the state-of-the-art methods.
| Method | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.913 | 0.902 | 0.756 | 0.786 | 0.759 | |
| 0.924 | 0.856 | 0.793 | 0.816 | 0.803 | |
| 0.955 | 0.879 | 0.946 | 0.906 | 0.973 | |
| 0.875 | - | 0.933 | - | 0.910 | |
| - | - | 0.750 | - | 0.892 | |
| 0.969 | 0.928 | 0.938 | 0.980 | ||
| 0.952 |
Fig. 5The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves achieved by four different methods in the task of severity assessment.
Fig. 6The Precision-Recall (PR) curve achieved by four different methods in the task of severity assessment.
Quantitative comparison for the performance of lung lobe segmentation with the state-of-the-art methods.
| Method | # (MB) | DSC | SEN | PPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 131.71 | 0.776 | 0.759 | ||
| 34.97 | 0.784 | 0.773 | 0.821 | |
| 14.37 | 0.759 | 0.756 | 0.785 | |
| 15.32 | 0.799 |
Fig. 7The visualization of lung lobe segmentation results by three different methods on two typical cases. GT denotes the ground-truth masks. The under-segmentation regions are denoted by red boxes. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 8Performance comparison for severity prediction with respect to different bag sizes.
Fig. 9Boxplot for the margin of prediction and label with respect to different weight for multiple instance loss. The margin larger than 0.5 indicates the wrong prediction.
Performance comparison for segmentation with respect to different learning rate.
| Learning rate | DSC | SEN | PPV |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.783 | 0.772 | 0.789 |
| 0.01 | 0.785 | 0.783 | 0.799 |
| 0.001 | 0.734 | 0.705 | 0.754 |
Performance comparison for severity prediction with respect to different learning rate.
| Learning rate | Accurate | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.946 | 0.833 | 0.970 | 0.885 |
| 0.01 | 0.985 | 0.975 | 0.952 | 0.963 |
| 0.001 | 0.960 | 0.881 | 0.922 | 0.900 |