| Literature DB >> 34381322 |
Yanyan Pan1, Huiping Zhang1, Jinsuo Yang1, Jing Guo1, Zhiguo Yang2, Jianbing Wang2, Ge Song2.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the application value of multimodal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images based on the deep convolutional neural network (Conv.Net) in the diagnosis of strokes. Specifically, four automatic segmentation algorithms were proposed to segment multimodal MRI images of stroke patients. The segmentation effects were evaluated factoring into DICE, accuracy, sensitivity, and segmentation distance coefficient. It was found that although two-dimensional (2D) full convolutional neural network-based segmentation algorithm can locate and segment the lesion, its accuracy was low; the three-dimensional one exhibited higher accuracy, with various objective indicators improved, and the segmentation accuracy of the training set and the test set was 0.93 and 0.79, respectively, meeting the needs of automatic diagnosis. The asymmetric 3D residual U-Net network had good convergence and high segmentation accuracy, and the 3D deep residual network proposed on its basis had good segmentation coefficients, which can not only ensure segmentation accuracy but also avoid network degradation problems. In conclusion, the Conv.Net model can accurately segment the foci of patients with ischemic stroke and is suggested in clinic.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34381322 PMCID: PMC8321727 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7598613
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Figure 1The flow chart of the segmentation algorithm based on the cascaded 3D deep residual network.
Figure 2Cross sections and labels under 7 MRI modalities. (a) T1C; (b) T2; (c) CBF; (d) CBV; (e) DWI; (f) TMax; (g) TTP; and (h) GT.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of pooling. (a) Maximum pooling; (b) mean pooling.
Figure 4Partial MRI results of stroke patients. (a) TI; (b) T2; (c) T1C; and (d) flair.
Figure 5Segmentation results of the test set.
Figure 6Segmentation results of the training set.
Figure 7The evaluation indexes of segmentation results. (a) training set; (b) validation set.
Figure 8The segmentation outcomes of various algorithms on the test set. (a) mean value; (b) standard deviation.
Figure 9The segmentation outcomes of various algorithms on the validation set. (a) mean value; (b) standard deviation.