| Literature DB >> 33974149 |
Sebastian Nowak1, Narine Mesropyan1, Anton Faron1, Wolfgang Block1, Martin Reuter2,3,4, Ulrike I Attenberger1, Julian A Luetkens1, Alois M Sprinkart5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the diagnostic performance of deep transfer learning (DTL) to detect liver cirrhosis from clinical MRI.Entities:
Keywords: Deep learning; Liver cirrhosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neural networks, computer
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33974149 PMCID: PMC8523404 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07858-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 1Flowchart illustrating the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the group of patients with liver cirrhosis for this study
Fig. 2Details of the presented deep transfer learning (DTL) pipeline for detection of liver cirrhosis. The segmentation network (left) is based on a U-net architecture, with a ResNet34 convolutional neural network (CNN) as encoder, pre-trained on the ImageNet archive. For the classification task (right), a pre-trained ResNet50 CNN was employed. The classification performance of the DTL pipeline including liver segmentation (A) was compared to a classification based on the original, unsegmented images (B)
Accuracy (ACC), balanced accuracy (BACC), sensitivity (Sens), and specificity (Spec) for identification of liver cirrhosis for validation (vACC, vBACC, vSens, vSpec) and test (tACC, tBACC, tSens, tSpec) of the deep transfer learning (DTL) method based on unsegmented images and based on images with prior segmentation of the liver. The accuracy of the DTL approaches was also compared to a radiological resident and a board-certified radiologist. Statistical difference was assessed by χ-test
| Reader/method | vACC | tACC | vBACC | tBACC | vSens | tSens | vSpec | tSpec | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet50 (segmented liver) | 0.99 | - | 0.96 | - | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 1 | 1 | 0.83 |
| ResNet50 (full image) | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 1 | 0.96 | 0.79 | ||
| Board-certified radiologist | 0.96 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 1 | 0.96 | ||
| Radiology resident (4th year) | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.91 | 1 | 0.92 |
Dice values of the segmentation convolutional neural network (CNN) and classification accuracy of liver cirrhosis of the classification CNN at different stages of the training experiments. In the first stage of training the segmentation CNN, a Dice score of 0.9828 was achieved by optimizing the convolutional layers of the random-initialized decoder and remaining the parameters of the pre-trained ResNet34 encoder unchanged. In the following three stages that started from the model state of the previous stage, only minor improvements of 0.001 of the Dice score were achieved. In these stages, the convolutional layers of the pre-trained ResNet34 encoder were made variable, whereby the learning rate (LR) increased linearly from the first to the last layer of the CNN. In the first stage of training the classification CNN, an accuracy of 0.99 for the segmented images and 0.97 for the unsegmented images were achieved by optimizing the output layer of the ResNet50 CNN only. The following stages that started from the best previous model state did not lead to an improvement in accuracy and showed only minor improvements of the cross-entropy loss. Also in the last three stages, where the convolutional layers of the pre-trained ResNet50 were made variable with learning rates increased linearly from the first to the last layer of the CNN, no improvement in accuracy could be observed. Detailed descriptions of the training experiments can be found in Supplement S5
| Training stage | Epochs | Max LR last layer decoder | Max LR first layer encoder | Dice on validation set | ||
| Segmentation network (U-net like with ResNet34 encoder) | 1 | 80 | 0.001 | Frozen | 0.9828 | |
| 2 | 40 | 0.0005 | 0.000005 | No improvement | ||
| 3 | 40 | 0.0005 | 0.00005 | 0.9837 | ||
| 4 | 40 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 | 0.9838 | ||
| Training stage | Epochs | Max LR output layer | Max LR first layer | Accuracy and cross-entropy loss (segmented image) | Accuracy and cross-entropy loss (full image) | |
Classification network (ResNet50) | 1 | 80 | 0.1 | Frozen | 0.99, 0.1452 | 0.97, 0.325 |
| 2 | 40 | 0.01 | Frozen | No improvement | 0.97, 0.2151 | |
| 3 | 40 | 0.001 | Frozen | No improvement | No improvement | |
| 4 | 40 | 0.0001 | 0.000001 | No improvement | 0.97, 0.2025 | |
| 5 | 40 | 0.0001 | 0.00001 | 0.99, 0.1450 | No improvement | |
| 6 | 40 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.99, 0.1339 | No improvement | |
Fig. 3Liver cirrhosis classification performance of the deep transfer learning (DTL) methods trained on the segmented images (DTL A) or unsegmented images (DTL B) and of the radiology resident (rater A) and the board-certified radiologist (rater B) on the test set, illustrated by receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall curves and area under the curve (AUC) and average precision (AP) values
Fig. 4Gradient-weighted class activation maps for unsegmented and segmented images from the test set. The overlays highlight regions that had high impact on classification in patients without cirrhosis (a) and patients with cirrhosis (b). Patients with and without cirrhosis that were correctly classified by the DTL methods but incorrectly classified by the certified radiologist are shown in c. Examples of images with a disagreeing classification of the two DTL methods, where the image was only correctly classified with prior liver segmentation are shown in d. Images that were misclassified by both DTL methods, but correctly classified by the certified radiologist are shown in e
Evaluation of the gradient-weighted class activation maps of the test set. The maps of the predictions of the deep transfer learning method, trained on segmented images and images without liver segmentation, were visually inspected and it was recorded which image areas were highlighted, separately for both patient groups. Note that several areas of the image were highlighted, so the percentages of the different image areas do not add up to 100% within a patient group. The liver areas were divided into left, right hepatic, and caudate lobe. For the segmented images, it was also noted whether image areas at the transition zone of the caudate lobe to the image background were highlighted. For the full images, highlighted areas near the stomach, spleen, gastroesophageal junction, and spinal muscles were observed
| Unsegmented images | Patient group | Right hepatic | Left hepatic | Caudate lobe | Spleen | Stomach | Gastroesophageal junction | Spinal musculature |
| Cirrhosis | 53.8% | 35% | 22.5% | 6.3% | 22.5% | 12.5% | 2.5% | |
| No cirrhosis | 83.3% | 16.7% | 0 | 0 | 8.3% | 0 | 29.2% | |
| Segmented images | Patient group | Right hepatic | Left hepatic | Caudate lobe | Border caudate lobe/background | - | - | |
| Cirrhosis | 53.8% | 28.8% | 47.5% | 2.5% | - | - | ||
| No cirrhosis | 58.3% | 20.8% | 25% | 20.8% | - | - | ||