| Literature DB >> 34926297 |
Jinkui Hao1,2, Jianyang Xie1, Ri Liu3, Huaying Hao1, Yuhui Ma1,2, Kun Yan3, Ruirui Liu4, Yalin Zheng5, Jianjun Zheng4, Jiang Liu1,6, Jingfeng Zhang3, Yitian Zhao1,7,8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop an accurate and rapid computed tomography (CT)-based interpretable AI system for the diagnosis of lung diseases.Entities:
Keywords: CNN; CT; ConvLSTM; deep learning; lung diseases
Year: 2021 PMID: 34926297 PMCID: PMC8674429 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.781798
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Example axial CT slices of viral pneumonia (A), bacterial pneumonia (B). Accurate classification of different types of pneumonia is imperative for timely diagnosis and treatment. However, viral pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia display similar appearances in a CT image, which makes it difficult to accurately differentiate a patient with viral pneumonia from a case of bacterial pneumonia.
Characteristics of training and testing CT dataset for identifying viral pneumonia (VP) from bacterial pneumonia (BP) and normal controls.
| Cohort | VP | BP | Normal controls | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volumes | Slices | Volumes | Slices | Volumes | Slices | Volumes | Slices | |
| Training set | 95 | 15,931 | 30 | 5,068 | 43 | 7,310 | 168 | 28,309 |
| Testing set | 58 | 7,832 | 12 | 3,107 | 20 | 4,173 | 90 | 15,112 |
| Total | 153 | 23,763 | 42 | 8,175 | 63 | 11,483 | 258 | 43,421 |
Figure 2Flowchart of our whole system for differentiating between viral pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia in a chest CT volume. Each volume is divided into overlapping sequences containing n slices during the training phase, such that the overlapping slices between two sequences are k. When predicting each volume during the testing phase, in addition to using the model to obtain the classification results of the sequence, we also introduce sequence attention maps for auxiliary classification to enhance the confidence level of the results. GT, ground truth; ACE, adaptive-weighted cross-entropy loss; FC, fully connected layer.
Figure 3A Res2Net module is utilized to extract more discriminative features.
Figure 4ConvLSTM is utilized to implicitly learn axial dimensional dynamics and efficiently fuse axial dimensional features.
Figure 5Examples of attention maps obtained with Grad-CAM. (A) Viral pneumonia cases. (B) Bacterial pneumonia cases. (C) Normal cases. Lighter colors indicate the stronger response regions. From the maps, the infected regions receive greater attention.
Classification results for VP, BP and normal controls by different methods.
| Method | Slice/Sequence-Level | Case-level | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kappa | F1 | B-Acc | Sen | Spe | Kappa | F1 | B-Acc | Sen | Spe | |
| AlexNet | 0.5207 | 0.5680 | 0.6872 | 0.6375 | 0.7370 | 0.6889 | 0.7381 | 0.8207 | 0.8274 | 0.8140 |
| VGG19 | 0.6258 | 0.6574 | 0.7502 | 0.7152 | 0.7853 | 0.7709 | 0.8000 | 0.8571 | 0.8690 | 0.8601 |
| ResNet34 | 0.6767 | 0.7100 | 0.7948 | 0.7783 | 0.8112 | 0.8489 | 0.8598 | 0.9045 | 0.9048 | 0.9043 |
| InceptionV3 | 0.5177 | 0.6107 | 0.7156 | 0.6978 | 0.7333 | 0.7692 | 0.7976 | 0.8607 | 0.8631 | 0.8582 |
| Xception | 0.6802 | 0.6776 | 0.7688 | 0.7252 | 0.8124 | 0.8500 | 0.8631 | 0.9048 | 0.9107 | 0.9061 |
| C3D | 0.7382 | 0.7442 | 0.8232 | 0.8013 | 0.8450 | 0.8616 | 0.8729 | 0.9158 | 0.9183 | 0.9132 |
| I3D | 0.7437 | 0.7513 | 0.8403 | 0.8302 | 0.8132 | 0.8481 | 0.8952 | 0.9229 | 0.9167 | 0.9290 |
| S3D | 0.7525 | 0.7332 | 0.8106 | 0.7696 | 0.8517 | 0.8696 | 0.8796 | 0.9297 | 0.9133 | 0.9157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best performance of all the methods is highlighted in bold.
Figure 6Confusion matrices of the different methods at slice/sequence level. (A–F) are the results of VGG19, Resnet34, Xception, C3D, S3D and ours, respectively. The numbers in the confusion matrices denote the percentage (above) and number (below) of the predicted class.
Comparison of different methods in classifying viral pneumonia (VP) and bacterial pneumonia (BP), at a slice/sequence level.
| Method | Acc | Sen | Spe | AUC ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet | 0.7327 | 0.8182 | 0.6650 | 0.8700 ( |
| VGG19 | 0.7776 | 0.8197 | 0.7442 | 0.8785 ( |
| ResNet34 | 0.7939 | 0.8305 | 0.7649 | 0.8874 ( |
| InceptionV3 | 0.7429 | 0.8028 | 0.6955 | 0.8697 ( |
| Xception | 0.8170 | 0.7704 | 0.8438 | 0.8874 ( |
| C3D | 0.8218 |
| 0.7844 | 0.9129 ( |
| I3D | 0.8320 | 0.8274 | 0.8356 | 0.8956 ( |
| S3D | 0.8361 | 0.8413 | 0.8319 | 0.9035 ( |
|
|
| 0.8459 |
|
|
P-value is calculated by Delong’s test.
The best performance of all the methods is highlighted in bold.
Figure 7ROC curves in classifying viral pneumonia (VP) and bacterial pneumonia (BP) of the compared models and the proposed method.
Model size and inference time of different methods.
| C3D | I3D | S3D | SLP-Net | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model size (MB) | 39.2 | 48.7 | 42.3 | 34.4 |
| Time (ms) | 41.4 | 59.0 | 47.1 | 39.5 |
Effect of different settings of hyperparameter n and k on the results.
| Method | kappa | F1 | Acc | B-Acc | Sen | Spe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 5, k = 3 | 0.7376 | 0.7469 | 0.8546 | 0.8272 | 0.8096 | 0.8449 |
| n = 10, k = 3 | 0.7652 | 0.7701 | 0.8684 | 0.8453 | 0.8307 | 0.8599 |
| n = 10, k = 5 | 0.8241 | 0.8091 | 0.9012 | 0.8641 | 0.8471 | 0.8911 |
| n = 10, k = 7 | 0.8280 | 0.8123 | 0.9034 | 0.8665 | 0.8397 | 0.8934 |
| n = 15, k = 5 | 0.7453 | 0.7557 | 0.8577 | 0.8362 | 0.8231 | 0.8493 |
| n = 20, k = 5 | 0.7329 | 0.7068 | 0.8577 | 0.7930 | 0.7450 | 0.8410 |
Here, n and k denote the number of slices in the sequence and the number of overlapping slices between two sequences, respectively.
Figure 8Ablation studies of our SLP-Net.
Ablation study of Attention Map in classifying VP, BP, and Normal controls at the case-level.
| Method | Kappa | F1 | B-Acc | Sen | Spe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without Attention Map | 0.8731 | 0.9090 | 0.9167 | 0.9174 | 0.9160 |
| With Attention Map | 0.9263 | 0.9291 | 0.9523 | 0.9524 | 0.9521 |