| Literature DB >> 34920705 |
Wen Pan1,2, Xujia Li3, Weijia Wang4, Linjing Zhou4, Jiali Wu5, Tao Ren2, Chao Liu6, Muhan Lv7, Song Su8, Yong Tang9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Development of a deep learning method to identify Barrett's esophagus (BE) scopes in endoscopic images.Entities:
Keywords: Barrett's esophagus; Deep learning; Esophagoscope; Fully convolutional networks; Segmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34920705 PMCID: PMC8684213 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-02055-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 3.067
Fig. 1Overall workflow of this study
Patient characteristics (training set and test set)
| Total | Training set | Test set | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases, n(%) | 187 (100.00%) | 150 (80.21%) | 37( 19.79%) | ||
| Sex | Male, n(%) | 139 (74.33%) | 110 (73.33%) | 29 (78.28%) | .53 |
| Female, n(%) | 48 (25.67%) | 40 (26.67%) | 8 (21.62%) | ||
| Age, years, mean ± SD* | 53.96 ± 10.56 | 54.15 ± 10.34 | 53.16 ± 11.56 | .31 | |
| BMI, kg/m2, Median(IQR)** | 23.67 (22.57–24.63) | 23.70 (22.26–24.67) | 23.60 (23.16–24.50) | .31 | |
| Barrett’s maximum length, cm | < 3 | 136 (72.73%) | 108 (72.00%) | 28 (75.68%) | .65 |
| ≥ 3 | 51 (27.27%) | 42 (28%) | 9 (24.32%) |
*Age is expressed as mean ± SD (standard deviation)
**BMI, body-mass index; IQR, interquartile range
Fig. 2Schema of the FCN algorithm structure. Multiple full convolution layers with ReLU activation functions were used with deconvolution layers with skips. The images were input into the FCN and the segmentations were obtained as output masks in the same sizes
Patients were randomly divided into one training set (80%) and one test set (20%) according to patients
| Dataset | Patients | Images |
|---|---|---|
| Training set | 150 (80%) | 354 |
| Test set | 37 (20%) | 89 |
Performance of DL algorithm achieved in the test set in the tasks of identifying the GEJ and the SCJ of the BE scopes
| GEJ/SCJ | IOU | DSC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Average | SD | |
| GEJ | 0.56 | 0.14 | 0.71 | 0.12 |
| SCJ | 0.82 | 0.12 | 0.90 | 0.08 |
| GEJ + SCJ | 0.66 | 0.13 | 0.79 | 0.11 |
Fig. 3Examples of results obtained by DL algorithms versus expert annotations of four patients. Each column belongs to one patient. The upper row and lower row were GEJ and SCJ, respectively. The first two columns were taken using white light imaging, while the last two columns were taken using narrow band imaging. The expert annotations were marked as white. The DL obtained GEJ was marked as blue (upper row). The IOUs for GEJ were 0.79 (A), 0.76 (B), 0.66 (C), and 0.66 (D). The DL obtained SCJ was marked as green (lower row). The IOUs for SCJ were 0.91 (E), 0.88 (F), 0.91 (G), and 0.94 (H)