| Literature DB >> 34884166 |
Nazila Esmaeili1,2, Esam Sharaf1, Elmer Jeto Gomes Ataide1,3, Alfredo Illanes1, Axel Boese1, Nikolaos Davaris4, Christoph Arens5, Nassir Navab2, Michael Friebe1,6.
Abstract
(1) Background: Contact Endoscopy (CE) and Narrow Band Imaging (NBI) are optical imaging modalities that can provide enhanced and magnified visualization of the superficial vascular networks in the laryngeal mucosa. The similarity of vascular structures between benign and malignant lesions causes a challenge in the visual assessment of CE-NBI images. The main objective of this study is to use Deep Convolutional Neural Networks (DCNN) for the automatic classification of CE-NBI images into benign and malignant groups with minimal human intervention. (2)Entities:
Keywords: Deep Convolution Neural Network; cancer; classification; contact endoscopy; larynx; narrow band imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34884166 PMCID: PMC8662427 DOI: 10.3390/s21238157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The overall architecture of the proposed approach.
The summary of three experiments classified according to the different conditions.
| Experiment | Data | Cut-Off Layer | Classifier | Dataset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1 | No | conv2_block3_out | Global Max | Random |
| conv2_block3_out | Global Max | |||
| No cut-off | Global Max | |||
| Experiment 2 | No | conv2_block3_out | Global Max | Manual |
| Experiment 3 | Yes | conv2_block3_out | Global Max | Manual |
Results of the selected models in each experiment. Metrics of the validation and testing phases are averages over five folds.
| Experiment | Model | Validation | Testing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Loss | Accuracy | ||
| Experiment 1 | Model 5 | 0.979 | 0.967 | 0.986 | 0.06 | 0.991 |
| Model 6 | 0.943 | 0.914 | 0.959 | 0.15 | 0.958 | |
| Model 7 | 0.967 | 0.960 | 0.974 | 0.11 | 0.984 | |
| Experiment 2 | Model 5 | 0.976 | 0.958 | 0.985 | 0.07 | 0.929 |
| Experiment 3 | Model 5 | 0.925 | 0.888 | 0.960 | 0.20 | 0.835 |
Figure 2Comparison of the accuracy track between Model 5 and Model 7 in Experiment 1. Orange and blue lines represent the training and validation phase, respectively.
Figure 3The example of correct and incorrect classification of CE-NBI images in Experiment 3.
Figure 4The accuracy and loss graphs of model Model 5 in Experiment 3. Orange and blue lines represent the training and validation phase, respectively.
Figure 5Confusion matrix testing scenario of Experiment 3.