Yiyuan Yang1, Yucheng Tang1, Riqiang Gao1, Shunxing Bao1, Yuankai Huo1, Matthew T McKenna2,3, Michael R Savona2,4,5, Richard G Abramson6, Bennett A Landman1,2,7. 1. Vanderbilt University, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 2. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 3. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 4. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 5. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Program in Cancer Biology, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 6. HCA Healthcare, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 7. Vanderbilt University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Abstract
Purpose: Deep learning is a promising technique for spleen segmentation. Our study aims to validate the reproducibility of deep learning-based spleen volume estimation by performing spleen segmentation on clinically acquired computed tomography (CT) scans from patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms. Approach: As approved by the institutional review board, we obtained 138 de-identified abdominal CT scans. A sum of voxel volume on an expert annotator's segmentations establishes the ground truth (estimation 1). We used our deep convolutional neural network (estimation 2) alongside traditional linear estimations (estimation 3 and 4) to estimate spleen volumes independently. Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, R 2 coefficient, Pearson R coefficient, the absolute difference in volume, and the relative difference in volume were calculated for 2 to 4 against the ground truth to compare and assess methods' performances. We re-labeled on scan-rescan on a subset of 40 studies to evaluate method reproducibility. Results: Calculated against the ground truth, the R 2 coefficients for our method (estimation 2) and linear method (estimation 3 and 4) are 0.998, 0.954, and 0.973, respectively. The Pearson R coefficients for the estimations against the ground truth are 0.999, 0.963, and 0.978, respectively (paired t -tests produced p < 0.05 between 2 and 3, and 2 and 4). Conclusion: The deep convolutional neural network algorithm shows excellent potential in rendering more precise spleen volume estimations. Our computer-aided segmentation exhibits reasonable improvements in splenic volume estimation accuracy.
Purpose: Deep learning is a promising technique for spleen segmentation. Our study aims to validate the reproducibility of deep learning-based spleen volume estimation by performing spleen segmentation on clinically acquired computed tomography (CT) scans from patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms. Approach: As approved by the institutional review board, we obtained 138 de-identified abdominal CT scans. A sum of voxel volume on an expert annotator's segmentations establishes the ground truth (estimation 1). We used our deep convolutional neural network (estimation 2) alongside traditional linear estimations (estimation 3 and 4) to estimate spleen volumes independently. Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, R 2 coefficient, Pearson R coefficient, the absolute difference in volume, and the relative difference in volume were calculated for 2 to 4 against the ground truth to compare and assess methods' performances. We re-labeled on scan-rescan on a subset of 40 studies to evaluate method reproducibility. Results: Calculated against the ground truth, the R 2 coefficients for our method (estimation 2) and linear method (estimation 3 and 4) are 0.998, 0.954, and 0.973, respectively. The Pearson R coefficients for the estimations against the ground truth are 0.999, 0.963, and 0.978, respectively (paired t -tests produced p < 0.05 between 2 and 3, and 2 and 4). Conclusion: The deep convolutional neural network algorithm shows excellent potential in rendering more precise spleen volume estimations. Our computer-aided segmentation exhibits reasonable improvements in splenic volume estimation accuracy.
Authors: Yucheng Tang; Yuankai Huo; Yunxi Xiong; Hyeonsoo Moon; Albert Assad; Tamara K Moyo; Michael R Savona; Richard Abramson; Bennett A Landman Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2019-03-15
Authors: Srdan Verstovsek; Ruben A Mesa; Jason Gotlib; Richard S Levy; Vikas Gupta; John F DiPersio; John V Catalano; Michael Deininger; Carole Miller; Richard T Silver; Moshe Talpaz; Elliott F Winton; Jimmie H Harvey; Murat O Arcasoy; Elizabeth Hexner; Roger M Lyons; Ronald Paquette; Azra Raza; Kris Vaddi; Susan Erickson-Viitanen; Iphigenia L Koumenis; William Sun; Victor Sandor; Hagop M Kantarjian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yuankai Huo; Jiaqi Liu; Zhoubing Xu; Robert L Harrigan; Albert Assad; Richard G Abramson; Bennett A Landman Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Yuankai Huo; Zhoubing Xu; Shunxing Bao; Camilo Bermudez; Hyeonsoo Moon; Prasanna Parvathaneni; Tamara K Moyo; Michael R Savona; Albert Assad; Richard G Abramson; Bennett A Landman Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Rathan M Subramaniam; Leon Lenchik Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Yuankai Huo; Zhoubing Xu; Hyeonsoo Moon; Shunxing Bao; Albert Assad; Tamara K Moyo; Michael R Savona; Richard G Abramson; Bennett A Landman Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Zhoubing Xu; Adam L Gertz; Ryan P Burke; Neil Bansal; Hakmook Kang; Bennett A Landman; Richard G Abramson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 3.173