| Literature DB >> 34164967 |
Bofan Song1, Sumsum Sunny2, Shaobai Li1, Keerthi Gurushanth3, Pramila Mendonca4, Nirza Mukhia5, Sanjana Patrick6, Shubha Gurudath5, Subhashini Raghavan5, Tsusennaro Imchen7, Shirley Leivon7, Trupti Kolur4, Vivek Shetty4, Vidya Bushan4, Rohan Ramesh8, Natzem Lima1, Vijay Pillai4, Petra Wilder-Smith9, Alben Sigamani4, Amritha Suresh2,4, Moni Kuriakose2,4,10, Praveen Birur5,6, Rongguang Liang1.
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Oral cancer is among the most common cancers globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Early detection is the most effective way to reduce the mortality rate. Deep learning-based cancer image classification models usually need to be hosted on a computing server. However, internet connection is unreliable for screening in low-resource settings. AIM: To develop a mobile-based dual-mode image classification method and customized Android application for point-of-care oral cancer detection. APPROACH: The dataset used in our study was captured among 5025 patients with our customized dual-modality mobile oral screening devices. We trained an efficient network MobileNet with focal loss and converted the model into TensorFlow Lite format. The finalized lite format model is ∼16.3 MB and ideal for smartphone platform operation. We have developed an Android smartphone application in an easy-to-use format that implements the mobile-based dual-modality image classification approach to distinguish oral potentially malignant and malignant images from normal/benign images.Entities:
Keywords: dual-modality; efficient deep learning; mobile screening device; oral cancer
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34164967 PMCID: PMC8220969 DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.26.6.065003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Opt ISSN: 1083-3668 Impact factor: 3.758
Fig. 1The (a) back and (b) front side: the dual-modal oral cancer screening system consists of a Moto G5 smartphone, a phone case with battery and electronics, an intraoral probe, an OTG cable connection from the phone case to the smartphone, and a cable connection from the intraoral probe to the phone case. The head of the intraoral probe has white-light LEDs, violet LEDs, and a camera module. Narrowband filters and a long-pass filter are placed in front of the violet LEDs and camera to enable intraoral autofluorescence imaging. The polarizing filter has been put in front of the white-light LEDs and camera to suppress glare from the saliva on mucosa surface. A custom Android application controls the system, captures dual-modal images, and implements the MobileNet based on-device dual-modal classification system in an easy-to-use format. (c) The three example image pairs of the WLI and AFI are shown in the figure labeled “normal,” “potentially malignant,” and “malignant” by oral specialists. The image pair labeled normal would be categorized as negative by the gold standard (normal/benign). The image pairs labeled potentially malignant and malignant would both be categorized as positive by the gold standard [suspicious (OPMD/malignant)]. The algorithm is trained to classify normal/benign versus suspicious.
Fig. 2Workflow of our mobile-based oral cancer screening and classification system. The images captured from smartphone could be classified directly on the device in resource-limited setting with poor internet connection.
Fig. 3Comparison of (a) parameters, (b) operations (Multi-Adds), and (c) model sizes of MobileNet (different hyperparameters settings) with InceptionV3.
The lesion type distribution of the training/validation dataset.
| Lesion types | Number of image pairs |
|---|---|
| Normal | 3211 |
| Benign | 740 |
| OPML | 1346 |
| Malignancy | 32 |
The lesion type distribution of the standalone test dataset.
| Lesion types | Number of image pairs |
|---|---|
| Normal | 393 |
| Benign | 69 |
| OPML | 397 |
| Malignancy | 23 |
The lesion site distribution of the standalone test dataset.
| Lesion sites | Number of image pairs |
|---|---|
| Cheek mucosa | 604 |
| Lower vestibule | 42 |
| Tongue | 46 |
| Lip | 130 |
| Floor of mouth | 3 |
| Palate | 10 |
| RMT | 29 |
| Other | 18 |
Fig. 4Screenshots of the custom Android application: (a) capture images use our custom application and device; (b), (c) efficient mobile deep learning result.
Comparison of validation accuracy and training time by using different optimization algorithms.
| Optimization algorithm | Training speed (s) | Performance (validation accuracy) (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Adadelta | 3771 | 76.60 |
| Adagrad | 3855 | 81.41 |
| Adam | 1867 | 83.32 |
| GradientDescent | 1853 | 82.63 |
| RMSProp | 2057 | 84.72 |
Fig. 5Comparison of running speed on Moto G5 CPU and validation accuracy on our dual-modal oral cancer dataset.
Fig. 6Comparison of running speed (ms per frame) of MobileNet with 1.0 width multiplier and 224 resolution multiplier on different smartphone CPU and GPU platforms.
Fig. 7Visualization of two suspicious examples: each example shows the white-light image and corresponding heat map. The red region represents where the neural network is most concentrated.