Literature DB >> 33732553

Effect of domain knowledge encoding in CNN model architecture-a prostate cancer study using mpMRI images.

Piotr Sobecki1,2, Rafał Jóźwiak1,2, Katarzyna Sklinda3, Artur Przelaskowski2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Currently, convolution neural networks (CNNs) are achieving remarkable success in various computer vision tasks, and in medical imaging research. Various CNN architectures and methodologies have been applied in the field of prostate cancer diagnosis. In this work, we evaluate the impact of the adaptation of a state-of-the-art CNN architecture on domain knowledge related to problems in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The architecture of the final CNN model was optimised on the basis of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) standard, which is currently the best available indicator in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of prostate multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examinations.
METHODS: A dataset containing 330 suspicious findings identified using mpMRI was used. Two CNN models were subjected to comparative analysis. Both implement the concept of decision-level fusion for mpMRI data, providing a separate network for each multi-parametric series. The first model implements a simple fusion of multi-parametric features to formulate the final decision. The architecture of the second model reflects the diagnostic pathway of PI-RADS methodology, using information about a lesion's primary anatomic location within the prostate gland. Both networks were experimentally tuned to successfully classify prostate cancer changes.
RESULTS: The optimised knowledge-encoded model achieved slightly better classification results compared with the traditional model architecture (AUC = 0.84 vs. AUC = 0.82). We found the proposed model to achieve convergence significantly faster.
CONCLUSIONS: The final knowledge-encoded CNN model provided more stable learning performance and faster convergence to optimal diagnostic accuracy. The results fail to demonstrate that PI-RADS-based modelling of CNN architecture can significantly improve performance of prostate cancer recognition using mpMRI. ©2021 Sobecki et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Deep learning; Knowledge-based modeling; Machine learning; Multimodal convolutional neural networks; Neural network architectures; PI-RADS; Prostate cancer; Prostate cancer diagnostics; mpMRI

Year:  2021        PMID: 33732553      PMCID: PMC7953869          DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PeerJ        ISSN: 2167-8359            Impact factor:   2.984


  19 in total

1.  Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer with MRI.

Authors:  Baowei Fei
Journal:  Curr Opin Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-09

2.  Automated prostate cancer detection using T2-weighted and high-b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Jin Tae Kwak; Sheng Xu; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto; Shijun Wang; Ronald M Summers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Can the addition of clinical information improve the accuracy of PI-RADS version 2 for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in positive MRI?

Authors:  S H Polanec; H Bickel; G J Wengert; M Arnoldner; P Clauser; M Susani; S F Shariat; K Pinker; T H Helbich; P A T Baltzer
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2019-11-02       Impact factor: 2.350

4.  Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Anton S Becker; Alexander Cornelius; Cäcilia S Reiner; Daniel Stocker; Erika J Ulbrich; Borna K Barth; Ashkan Mortezavi; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Automated diagnosis of prostate cancer in multi-parametric MRI based on multimodal convolutional neural networks.

Authors:  Minh Hung Le; Jingyu Chen; Liang Wang; Zhiwei Wang; Wenyu Liu; Kwang-Ting Tim Cheng; Xin Yang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  M L Blute; E J Bergstralh; A Iocca; B Scherer; H Zincke
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

Authors:  Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Searching for prostate cancer by fully automated magnetic resonance imaging classification: deep learning versus non-deep learning.

Authors:  Xinggang Wang; Wei Yang; Jeffrey Weinreb; Juan Han; Qiubai Li; Xiangchuang Kong; Yongluan Yan; Zan Ke; Bo Luo; Tao Liu; Liang Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Domain-specific cues improve robustness of deep learning-based segmentation of CT volumes.

Authors:  Marie Kloenne; Sebastian Niehaus; Leonie Lampe; Alberto Merola; Janis Reinelt; Ingo Roeder; Nico Scherf
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Prashanth Rawla
Journal:  World J Oncol       Date:  2019-04-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.