| Literature DB >> 34868534 |
Yunhui Zhao1, Junkai Xu1, Qisong Chen1.
Abstract
An esophageal cancer intelligent diagnosis system is developed to improve the recognition rate of esophageal cancer image diagnosis and the efficiency of physicians, as well as to improve the level of esophageal cancer image diagnosis in primary care institutions. In this paper, by collecting medical images related to esophageal cancer over the years, we establish an intelligent diagnosis system based on the convolutional neural network for esophageal cancer images through the steps of data annotation, image preprocessing, data enhancement, and deep learning to assist doctors in intelligent diagnosis. The convolutional neural network-based esophageal cancer image intelligent diagnosis system has been successfully applied in hospitals and widely praised by frontline doctors. This system is beneficial for primary care physicians to improve the overall accuracy of esophageal cancer diagnosis and reduce the risk of death of esophageal cancer patients. We also analyze that the efficacy of radiation therapy for esophageal cancer can be influenced by many factors, and clinical attention should be paid to grasp the relevant factors in order to improve the final treatment effect and prognosis of patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34868534 PMCID: PMC8639232 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9350677
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Main steps of training and learning.
Figure 2Convolutional neural network structure diagram.
Figure 3System architecture design.
Figure 4System flow design.
Figure 5Diagnostic details.
Performance indicators of the ODSNet detection network for each organ at risk: sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence interval.
| Sen (95% CI) | Spe (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Brain stem | 1.000 | 0.995 |
| Eye ball L | 1.000 | 0.997 |
| Eye ball R | 1.000 | 0.998 |
| Lens L | 0.786 | 0.998 |
| Lens R | 0.850 | 0.998 |
| Larynx | 1.000 | 0.999 |
| Mandible L | 0.997 | 0.996 |
| Mandible R | 1.000 | 0.995 |
| Oral cavity | 1.000 | 0.997 |
| Mastoid L | 1.000 | 0.995 |
| Mastoid R | 1.000 | 0.994 |
| Spinal cord | 1.000 | 0.983 |
Figure 6Segmentation results of ODSNet and FCN. The green line indicates the result of manual segmentation by doctors. The blue line represents the segmentation result of the nondetected FCN algorithm. The results of ODSNet are divided into two parts: green bounding boxes represent the detection results of endangered organs and attach the probability of belonging to an endangered organ (red font). The red line represents the automatic segmentation results of ODSNet.
Comparisons of Dice values with ODSNet and FCN between different organs at risk p < 0.01.
| ODSNet | FCN | 1Stat | tCitleal |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left | Right | Average | |||||
| Brain stem | — | — | 0.896 ± 0.03 | 0.837 ± 0.14 | 5.39 | 2.61 | <00001 |
| Eye balls | 0.932 ± 0.04 | 0.936 ± 0.03 | 0.934 ± 0.04 | 0.88 ± 0.12 | 4.59 | 2.59 | <00001 |
| Lens | 0.83 ± 0.07 | 0.842 ± 0.07 | 0.836 ± 0.07 | 0.77 ± 0.2 | 3.13 | 2.36 | 0.02 |
| Larynx | — | — | 0.87 ± 0.04 | 0.80 ± 0.11 | 10.2 | 2.59 | <00001 |
| Mandible | 0.821 ± 0.05 | 0.874 ± 0.06 | 0.823 ± 0.06 | 0.824 ± 0.04 | 6.26 | 2.61 | 0006 |
| Oral cavity | — | — | 0.928 ± 0.03 | 0.9 ± 0.07 | 3.48 | 2.6 | 0006 |
| Mastoids | 0.821 ± 0.05 | 0.824 ± 0.06 | 0.823 ± 0.06 | 0.74 ± 0.17 | 6.26 | 2.61 | <00001 |
| Spinal cord | — | — | 0.884 ± 0.07 | 0.771 ± 0.22 | 9.55 | 2.64 | <00001 |
| Parotids | 0.857 ± 0.05 | 0.85 ± 0.05 | 0.851 ± 0.05 | 0.821 ± 0.08 | 2.38 | 2.68 | 02 |
| T-M joints | 0.846 ± 0.04 | 0.844 ± 0.06 | 0.845 ± 0.05 | 0.828 ± 0.17 | 0.83 | 2.65 | 006 |
| Optic nerves | 0.661 ± 0.1 | 0.717 ± 0.1 | 0.689 ± 0.3 | 0.642 ± 0.12 | 2.93 | 2.69 | 005 |
| Overall | — | — | 0.861 ± 0.07 | 0.8 ± 0.07 | 5.71 | 3.25 | 0003 |
The values were the Dice values, represented as mean function (t) and standard deviation. p < 0.01, and t Stat > t Critical was considered significant.
Segmentation results of different T-staging patients from ODSNet in terms of DSC.
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brain stem | 0.89 ± 0.04 | 0.88 ± 0.03 | 0.89 ± 0.04 | 09 ± 0.03 |
| Eye balls | 0.936 ± 0.05 | 0.926 ± 0.02 | 0.931 ± 0.03 | 0.93 ± 0.04 |
| Lens | 0.84 ± 0.08 | 0.842 ± 0.1 | 0.831 ± 0.07 | 0.83 ± 0.07 |
| Larynx | 0.88 ± 0.03 | 0.88 ± 0.05 | 0.85 ± 0.05 | 0.87 ± 0.05 |
| Mandible | 0.919 ± 0.03 | 0.996 ± 0.03 | 0.927 ± 0.04 | 0.92 ± 0.03 |
| Oral cavity | 0.935 ± 0.02 | 0.922 ± 0.03 | 0.927 ± 0.03 | 0.92 ± 0.03 |
| Mastoids | 0.82 ± 0.04 | 0.827 ± 0.06 | 0.819 ± 0.06 | 0.828 ± 0.06 |
| Spinal cord | 0.876 ± 0.08 | 0.88 ± 0.07 | 0.89 ± 0.05 | 0.87 ± 0.09 |
| Parotids | 0.837 ± 0.06 | 0.844 ± 0.05 | 0.846 ± 0.05 | 0.85 ± 0.04 |
| T-M joints | 0.87 ± 0.02 | 0.85 ± 0.06 | 0.833 ± 0.04 | 0.83 ± 0.06 |
| Optic nerves | 0.68 ± 0.12 | 0.69 ± 0.07 | 0.68 ± 0.09 | 0.67 ± 0.09 |
The values were the Dice values, represented as mean + standard deviation. T = T-staging.