| Literature DB >> 34306173 |
Yan Wang1,2, Zixuan Feng3, Liping Song4,5, Xiangbin Liu4,5, Shuai Liu4,5.
Abstract
With the continuous improvement of human living standards, dietary habits are constantly changing, which brings various bowel problems. Among them, the morbidity and mortality rates of colorectal cancer have maintained a significant upward trend. In recent years, the application of deep learning in the medical field has become increasingly spread aboard and deep. In a colonoscopy, Artificial Intelligence based on deep learning is mainly used to assist in the detection of colorectal polyps and the classification of colorectal lesions. But when it comes to classification, it can lead to confusion between polyps and other diseases. In order to accurately diagnose various diseases in the intestines and improve the classification accuracy of polyps, this work proposes a multiclassification method for medical colonoscopy images based on deep learning, which mainly classifies the four conditions of polyps, inflammation, tumor, and normal. In view of the relatively small number of data sets, the network firstly trained by transfer learning on ImageNet was used as the pretraining model, and the prior knowledge learned from the source domain learning task was applied to the classification task about intestinal illnesses. Then, we fine-tune the model to make it more suitable for the task of intestinal classification by our data sets. Finally, the model is applied to the multiclassification of medical colonoscopy images. Experimental results show that the method in this work can significantly improve the recognition rate of polyps while ensuring the classification accuracy of other categories, so as to assist the doctor in the diagnosis of surgical resection.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34306173 PMCID: PMC8272675 DOI: 10.1155/2021/2485934
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Sample images of four types of colonoscopy in the data set.
Figure 2The effect of data enhancement.
Distribution of test and training data.
| Data category | Normal | Inflammation | Polyp | Cancer | Total quantity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of test sets | 120 | 110 | 110 | 95 | 435 |
| Number of training sets | 480 | 440 | 430 | 365 | 1715 |
| Total quantity | 600 | 550 | 540 | 460 | 2150 |
Figure 3Features learned from different object classes.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of fine-tuning in deep learning.
Figure 5The network structure of AlexNet, VGGNet16, and VGGNet19.
Classification results on the traditional deep learning model.
| Model | Normal ( | Inflammation ( | Polyp ( | Cancer ( | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet | 3/12 | 5/11 | 8/11 | 2/9 | 41.86 |
| VGG16 | 10/12 | 4/11 | 10/11 | 8/9 | 74.42 |
| VGG19 | 11/12 | 9/11 | 7/11 | 1/9 | 65.12 |
| ResNet50 | 11/12 | 10/11 | 10/11 | 5/9 | 83.72 |
| ResNet101 | 9/12 | 9/11 | 6/11 | 8/9 | 74.42 |
Classification results on the deep transfer learning model.
| Model | Normal ( | Inflammation ( | Polyp ( | Cancer ( | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet-tl | 6/12 | 6/11 | 8/11 | 4/9 | 55.81 |
| VGG16-tl | 10/12 | 7/11 | 10/11 | 7/9 | 79.07 |
| VGG19-tl | 9/12 | 8/11 | 8/11 | 5/9 | 69.77 |
| ResNet50-tl | 11/12 | 10/11 | 10/11 | 8/9 | 90.70 |
| ResNet101-tl | 10/12 | 9/11 | 8/11 | 8/9 | 81.40 |
Classification results of traditional deep learning model based on data enhancement.
| Model | Normal ( | Inflammation ( | Polyp ( | Cancer ( | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet | 81/120 | 47/110 | 69/110 | 23/95 | 50.57 |
| VGG16 | 112/120 | 67/110 | 79/110 | 76/95 | 76.78 |
| VGG19 | 101/120 | 47/110 | 83/110 | 61/95 | 67.13 |
| ResNet50 | 109/120 | 97/110 | 96/110 | 79/95 | 87.59 |
| ResNet101 | 106/120 | 88/110 | 90/110 | 63/95 | 79.77 |
Classification results of deep transfer learning model based on data enhancement.
| Model | Normal ( | Inflammation ( | Polyp ( | Cancer ( | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet-tl | 89/120 | 56/110 | 79/110 | 31/95 | 58.62 |
| VGG16-tl | 119/120 | 72/110 | 87/110 | 82/95 | 82.76 |
| VGG19-tl | 106/120 | 52/110 | 91/110 | 67/95 | 72.64 |
| ResNet50-tl | 115/120 | 106/110 | 102/110 | 88/95 | 94.48 |
| ResNet101-tl | 111/120 | 95/110 | 98/110 | 72/95 | 86.44 |
Comparison of classification models on traditional deep learning models and deep transfer-based learning.
| Model | AlexNet | VGG16 | VGG19 | ResNet50 | ResNet101 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional | Our | Traditional | Our | Traditional | Our | Traditional | Our | Traditional | Our | |
| Acc (%) | 41.86 | 55.81 | 74.42 | 79.07 | 65.12 | 69.77 | 83.72 | 90.70 | 74.42 | 81.40 |
| Acc-DA (%) | 50.57 | 58.62 | 76.78 | 82.76 | 67.13 | 72.64 | 87.59 | 94.48 | 79.77 | 86.44 |
Comparison of transfer learning and standard machine learning.
| Learning type | Sample space | Probability distribution |
|---|---|---|
| Standard machine learning |
|
|
| Transfer learning |
| |
Figure 6Confusion matrix diagram of four classifications of each model.