| Literature DB >> 33821209 |
Kajetan Grodecki, Aditya Killekar, Andrew Lin, Sebastien Cadet, Priscilla McElhinney, Aryabod Razipour, Cato Chan, Barry D Pressman, Peter Julien, Judit Simon, Pal Maurovich-Horvat, Nicola Gaibazzi, Udit Thakur, Elisabetta Mancini, Cecilia Agalbato, Jiro Munechika, Hidenari Matsumoto, Roberto Menè, Gianfranco Parati, Franco Cernigliaro, Nitesh Nerlekar, Camilla Torlasco, Gianluca Pontone, Damini Dey, Piotr J Slomka.
Abstract
Quantitative lung measures derived from computed tomography (CT) have been demonstrated to improve prognostication in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients, but are not part of the clinical routine since required manual segmentation of lung lesions is prohibitively time-consuming. We propose a new fully automated deep learning framework for rapid quantification and differentiation between lung lesions in COVID-19 pneumonia from both contrast and non-contrast CT images using convolutional Long Short-Term Memory (ConvLSTM) networks. Utilizing the expert annotations, model training was performed 5 times with separate hold-out sets using 5-fold cross-validation to segment ground-glass opacity and high opacity (including consolidation and pleural effusion). The performance of the method was evaluated on CT data sets from 197 patients with positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test result for SARS-CoV-2. Strong agreement between expert manual and automatic segmentation was obtained for lung lesions with a Dice score coefficient of 0.876 $\pm$ 0.005; excellent correlations of 0.978 and 0.981 for ground-glass opacity and high opacity volumes. In the external validation set of 67 patients, there was dice score coefficient of 0.767 $\pm$ 0.009 as well as excellent correlations of 0.989 and 0.996 for ground-glass opacity and high opacity volumes. Computations for a CT scan comprising 120 slices were performed under 2 seconds on a personal computer equipped with NVIDIA Titan RTX graphics processing unit. Therefore, our deep learning-based method allows rapid fully-automated quantitative measurement of pneumonia burden from CT and may generate results with an accuracy similar to the expert readers.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33821209 PMCID: PMC8020980
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ArXiv ISSN: 2331-8422
Patient baseline characteristics and imaging data in a training cohort.
| Baseline characteristics | N=187 |
|---|---|
| Age, years | 61 ± 16 |
| Men | 123 (65.7) |
| Body mass index | 26.8 ± 5.3 |
| Current smoker | 22 (11.7) |
| Former smoker | 10 (5.3) |
| History of lung disease | 19 (10.1) |
| Image characteristics | N=197 |
| CT scanner | |
| Aquilion ONE | 73 (37.0) |
| GE Revolution | 13 (6.6) |
| GE Discovery CT750 HD | 37 (18.8) |
| LightSpeed VCT | 36 (18.3) |
| Brilliance iCT | 28 (14.2) |
| Unknown | 10 (5.1) |
| Non-contrast | 167 (84.8) |
| CT pulmonary angiography | 30 (15.2) |
| ECG-gated | 35 (17.8) |
The data presented in the table are as n(%) or mean ± SD
Dataset information.
| Cohort | No. of patients | No. of lesions | No. of lesion slices | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ground-glass opacity | High opacity | ||||
| Training | 197 | 31560 | 15375 | 6933 | |
| External Validation | Centro Cardiologico Monzino | 17 | 10053 | 4396 | 1834 |
| MosMedData [ | 50 | 2049 | 785 | 0 | |
Fig. 1Framework for data preparation.
First, input slices were restricted to the body region and then uniformly resized to 256×256. Further, the data was randomly augmented with the rotation of [−10, +10] degrees, translation of up to 10 pixels in x- and y-directions, and scaling of [0.9, 1.05] times. Finally, data were homogenized by clipping the Hounsfield units between −1024 to 600 (Lung region) and normalizing between 0 and 1 using Min-Max scaling.
Fig. 2Framework of the proposed method.
Fig. 3Cross-Validation
For each fold of the 5-fold cross-validation, the following datasets were used: (1) training dataset (125 or 126 cases); (2) validation dataset (32 cases); (3) test dataset (39 or 40 cases).
Fig. 4Comparison of expert and automatic lung lesion segmentation.
Blue represents ground-glass opacity. The dice score coefficient for this patient was 0.857.
Fig. 5Comparison of expert and automatic lung lesion segmentation.
Blue represents ground-glass opacity and yellow represents consolidations. The dice score coefficient for this patient was 0.792.
Fig. 6Bland-Altman plots and Spearman correlation for volumes of ground-glass opacity (A-B) and high-opacity (C-D) between expert and automatic quantification in a testing cohort.
Computation times using different hardware components.
| Hardware | No. of Slices | |
|---|---|---|
| 120 | 500 | |
| GPU 24GB (Titan RTX) | 1.8 secs | 5.5 secs |
| GPU 4GB (Quadro K1200) | 23.5 secs | 98 secs |
| CPU 3.4 GHZ (i7–6800K) | 145 secs | 605 secs |