Literature DB >> 34715553

Comparing deep learning-based automatic segmentation of breast masses to expert interobserver variability in ultrasound imaging.

Jeremy M Webb1, Shaheeda A Adusei2, Yinong Wang1, Naziya Samreen1, Kalie Adler1, Duane D Meixner1, Robert T Fazzio1, Mostafa Fatemi2, Azra Alizad3.   

Abstract

Deep learning is a powerful tool that became practical in 2008, harnessing the power of Graphic Processing Unites, and has developed rapidly in image, video, and natural language processing. There are ongoing developments in the application of deep learning to medical data for a variety of tasks across multiple imaging modalities. The reliability and repeatability of deep learning techniques are of utmost importance if deep learning can be considered a tool for assisting experts, including physicians, radiologists, and sonographers. Owing to the high costs of labeling data, deep learning models are often evaluated against one expert, and it is unknown if any errors fall within a clinically acceptable range. Ultrasound is a commonly used imaging modality for breast cancer screening processes and for visually estimating risk using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score. This process is highly dependent on the skills and experience of the sonographers and radiologists, thereby leading to interobserver variability and interpretation. For these reasons, we propose an interobserver reliability study comparing the performance of a current top-performing deep learning segmentation model against three experts who manually segmented suspicious breast lesions in clinical ultrasound (US) images. We pretrained the model using a US thyroid segmentation dataset with 455 patients and 50,993 images, and trained the model using a US breast segmentation dataset with 733 patients and 29,884 images. We found a mean Fleiss kappa value of 0.78 for the performance of three experts in breast mass segmentation compared to a mean Fleiss kappa value of 0.79 for the performance of experts and the optimized deep learning model.
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automatic segmentation; Breast cancer; Deep leaning; Interobserver variability; Ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34715553      PMCID: PMC8642313          DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104966

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comput Biol Med        ISSN: 0010-4825            Impact factor:   4.589


  20 in total

1.  Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation.

Authors:  G Rahbar; A C Sie; G C Hansen; J S Prince; M L Melany; H E Reynolds; V P Jackson; J W Sayre; L W Bassett
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods.

Authors:  Radhakrishna Achanta; Appu Shaji; Kevin Smith; Aurelien Lucchi; Pascal Fua; Sabine Süsstrunk
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 6.226

3.  BIRADS ultrasonography.

Authors:  L Levy; M Suissa; J F Chiche; G Teman; B Martin
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Nonlocal means-based speckle filtering for ultrasound images.

Authors:  Pierrick Coupé; Pierre Hellier; Charles Kervrann; Christian Barillot
Journal:  IEEE Trans Image Process       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 10.856

5.  Comparing deep learning-based auto-segmentation of organs at risk and clinical target volumes to expert inter-observer variability in radiotherapy planning.

Authors:  Jordan Wong; Allan Fong; Nevin McVicar; Sally Smith; Joshua Giambattista; Derek Wells; Carter Kolbeck; Jonathan Giambattista; Lovedeep Gondara; Abraham Alexander
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 6.280

6.  Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview.

Authors:  Jacques Ferlay; Murielle Colombet; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Donald M Parkin; Marion Piñeros; Ariana Znaor; Freddie Bray
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Computer-aided diagnosis using morphological features for classifying breast lesions on ultrasound.

Authors:  Y-L Huang; D-R Chen; Y-R Jiang; S-J Kuo; H-K Wu; W K Moon
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 7.299

8.  Inter- and Intra-Observer Agreement in Ultrasound BI-RADS Classification and Real-Time Elastography Tsukuba Score Assessment of Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Fabienne Schwab; Katharina Redling; Matthias Siebert; Andy Schötzau; Cora-Ann Schoenenberger; Rosanna Zanetti-Dällenbach
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Review article: Use of ultrasound in the developing world.

Authors:  Stephanie Sippel; Krithika Muruganandan; Adam Levine; Sachita Shah
Journal:  Int J Emerg Med       Date:  2011-12-07

10.  Automatic Deep Learning Semantic Segmentation of Ultrasound Thyroid Cineclips Using Recurrent Fully Convolutional Networks.

Authors:  Jeremy M Webb; Duane D Meixner; Shaheeda A Adusei; Eric C Polley; Mostafa Fatemi; Azra Alizad
Journal:  IEEE Access       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 3.367

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.