| Literature DB >> 34071811 |
Ai-Ho Liao1,2, Jheng-Ru Chen3, Shi-Hong Liu1, Chun-Hao Lu3, Chia-Wei Lin4, Jeng-Yi Shieh5, Wen-Chin Weng6,7,8, Po-Hsiang Tsui3,9,10.
Abstract
Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) results in loss of ambulation and premature death. Ultrasound provides real-time, safe, and cost-effective routine examinations. Deep learning allows the automatic generation of useful features for classification. This study utilized deep learning of ultrasound imaging for classifying patients with DMD based on their ambulatory function. A total of 85 individuals (including ambulatory and nonambulatory subjects) underwent ultrasound examinations of the gastrocnemius for deep learning of image data using LeNet, AlexNet, VGG-16, VGG-16TL, VGG-19, and VGG-19TL models (the notation TL indicates fine-tuning pretrained models). Gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) was used to visualize features recognized by the models. The classification performance was evaluated using the confusion matrix and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The results show that each deep learning model endows muscle ultrasound imaging with the ability to enable DMD evaluations. The Grad-CAMs indicated that boundary visibility, muscular texture clarity, and posterior shadowing are relevant sonographic features recognized by the models for evaluating ambulatory function. Of the proposed models, VGG-19 provided satisfying classification performance (the area under the ROC curve: 0.98; accuracy: 94.18%) and feature recognition in terms of physical characteristics. Deep learning of muscle ultrasound is a potential strategy for DMD characterization.Entities:
Keywords: Duchenne muscular dystrophy; deep learning; ultrasound imaging
Year: 2021 PMID: 34071811 PMCID: PMC8228495 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11060963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Patient demographic data and DMD stage definitions. DMD was diagnosed through muscle biopsy or genetic testing and classified into four stages according to clinical symptoms.
| Stage | Clinical Symptoms | Age (Years) (Range) | Number of Subjects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | No weakness: | 10.75 ± 4.59 | 12 |
| Stage 1 | Presymptomatic: | 7.92 ± 2.33 | 41 |
| Stage 2 | Early non-ambulatory: | 12.68 ± 2.05 | 20 |
| Stage 3 | Late non-ambulatory: | 17.08 ± 2.90 | 12 |
Sample size and amount of data for labeling, training, and tests of ultrasound images for patients with DMD.
| Subjects | Number of Subjects | Number of Subjects | Amount of Training Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control | 12 | (10, 2) | 250 |
| Stage 1 | 41 | (32, 9) | 800 |
| Stage 2 | 20 | (16, 4) | 400 |
| Stage 3 | 12 | (10, 2) | 250 |
Figure 1Data training and testing by using the proposed CNN models. Prediction was conducted through averaging the results of four models with four-fold cross-validation.
Figure 2Typical B-mode images and Grad-CAM images of the gastrocnemius muscle corresponding to each stage of DMD. In comparison with B-scan images, the highlighted regions in the Grad-CAM images gradually extend to the inferior boundary of the muscle and the shadowing area in the B-mode image with increasing DMD severity.
Figure 3The confusion matrix of predicting ambulatory function of the patients with DMD for each model (class 1: n = 11 for normal control and stage 1; class 2: n = 6 for stages 2 and 3). (a) LeNet; (b) AlexNet; (c) VGG-16; (d) VGG-16TL; (e) VGG-19; and (f) VGG-19TL. VGG-19 provided the highest true positive and true negative rates in the test dataset.
Figure 4ROC curves when using the proposed model to differentiate the ambulatory and nonambulatory patients. (a) LeNet; (b) AlexNet; (c) VGG-16; (d) VGG-16TL; (e) VGG-19; and (f) VGG-19TL. VGG-19 as well as its pretrained version offered higher AUROCs compared with other proposed models.
Performance metrics for differentiating ambulatory and nonambulatory patients through deep learning of ultrasound imaging data using the proposed models. Compared with LeNet, AlexNet, VGG-16, and VGG-16TH, VGG-19 as well as its pretrained version offered better performance in terms of confusion matrix data.
| Model | LeNet | AlexNet | VGG-16 | VGG-16TL | VGG-19 | VGG-19TL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy, % | 82.35 | 88.24 | 88.24 | 88.24 | 94.18 | 94.18 |
| Precision, % | 80.00 | 75.00 | 83.33 | 83.33 | 85.71 | 85.71 |
| Sensitivity, % | 66.67 | 100.00 | 78.82 | 78.82 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Specificity, % | 90.91 | 81.82 | 90.91 | 90.91 | 90.91 | 90.91 |
| F1-score | 0.73 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.92 |
| AUROC (95% CI) | 0.91 (0.75–1.00) | 0.95 (0.87–1.00) | 0.95 (0.87–1.00) | 0.95 (0.85–1.00) | 0.98 (0.94–1.00) | 0.97 (0.90–1.00) |
AUROC area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, CI: confidence interval.