| Literature DB >> 34943444 |
Hafiz Abbad Ur Rehman1, Chyi-Yeu Lin1, Shun-Feng Su2.
Abstract
Thyroid nodules are widespread in the United States and the rest of the world, with a prevalence ranging from 19 to 68%. The problem with nodules is whether they are malignant or benign. Ultrasonography is currently recommended as the initial modality for evaluating thyroid nodules. However, obtaining a good diagnosis from ultrasound imaging depends entirely on the radiologists levels of experience and other circumstances. There is a tremendous demand for automated and more reliable methods to screen ultrasound images more efficiently. This research proposes an efficient and quick detection deep learning approach for thyroid nodules. An open and publicly available dataset, Thyroid Digital Image Database (TDID), is used to determine the robustness of the suggested method. Each image is formatted into a pyramid tile-based data structure, which the proposed VGG-16 model evaluates to provide segmentation results for nodular detection. The proposed method adopts a top-down approach to hierarchically integrate high- and low-level features to distinguish nodules of varied sizes by employing fuse features effectively. The results demonstrated that the proposed method outperformed the U-Net model, achieving an accuracy of 99%, and was two times faster than the competitive model.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; healthcare; medical diagnosis; thyroid nodule
Year: 2021 PMID: 34943444 PMCID: PMC8700062 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11122209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Schematic block diagram of the proposed methodology.
Figure 2Proposed backbone VGG-16 architecture.
Figure 3Original image and its corresponding GT masks.
Distribution of dataset for Testing and Training.
| Diagnosis Class | Training | Testing | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| TIRADS-1 | 84 | 44 | 128 |
| TIRADS-2 | 61 | 32 | 93 |
| TIRADS-3 | 47 | 19 | 66 |
| TIRADS-4 | 43 | 11 | 54 |
| TIRADS-5 | 45 | 14 | 59 |
| Total | 280 | 120 | 400 |
Network Parameters Detail.
| Model | Learning Rate | Drop Rate | Weight Decay |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed Method | 1 × 10−9 | 0.5 | 0.0005 |
| U-Net | 0.0001 | 0.2 | 0.0002 |
Architecture and configuration of the proposed network.
| Layer | Feature (Train) | Feature (Inference) | Kernel Size | Stride |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input Image | 512 × 512 × 1 | 512 × 512 × 1 | - | - |
| Padding | 712 × 712 × 1 | 712 × 712 × 1 | - | - |
| Convolutional 1 | ||||
| Conv-1 + Relu-1 | 710 × 710 × 64 | 710 × 710 × 64 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Conv-2 + Relu-2 | 710 × 710 × 64 | 710 × 710 × 64 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Pool-1 | 355 × 355 × 64 | 355 × 355 × 64 | 2 × 2 | 2 |
| Convolutional 2 | ||||
| Conv-1 + Relu-1 | 355 × 355 × 128 | 355 × 355 × 128 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Conv-2 + Relu-2 | 355 × 355 × 128 | 355 × 355 × 128 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Pool-2 | 178 × 178 × 128 | 178 × 178 × 128 | 2 × 2 | 2 |
| Convolutional 3 | ||||
| Conv-1 + Relu-1 | 178 × 178 × 256 | 178 × 178 × 256 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Conv-2 + Relu-2 | 178 × 178 × 256 | 178 × 178 × 256 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Conv-3 + Relu-3 | 178 × 178 × 256 | 178 × 178 × 256 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Pool-3 | 89 × 89 × 256 | 89 × 89 × 256 | 2 × 2 | 2 |
| Convolutional 4 | ||||
| Conv-1 + Relu-1 | 89 × 89 × 512 | 89 × 89 × 512 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Conv-2 + Relu-2 | 89 × 89 × 512 | 89 × 89 × 512 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Conv-3 + Relu-3 | 89 × 89 × 512 | 89 × 89 × 512 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Pool-4 | 45 × 45 × 512 | 45 × 45 × 512 | 2 × 2 | 2 |
| Convolutional 5 | ||||
| Conv-1 + Relu-1 | 45 × 45 × 512 | 45 × 45 × 512 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Conv-2 + Relu-2 | 45 × 45 × 512 | 45 × 45 × 512 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Conv-3 + Relu-3 | 45 × 45 × 512 | 45 × 45 × 512 | 3 × 3 | 1 |
| Pool-5 | 23 × 23 × 512 | 23 × 23 × 512 | 2 × 2 | 2 |
| Conv-6 + Relu-6 + Drop6 | 17 × 17 × 4096 | 17 × 17 × 4096 | 7 × 7 | 1 |
| Conv-7 + Relu-7 + Drop7 | 17 × 17 × 4096 | 17 × 17 × 4096 | 1 × 1 | 1 |
| Conv-8 | 17 × 17 × 1 | 17 × 17 × 1 | 1 × 1 | 1 |
| Deconv-9 | 576 × 576 × 1 | 576 × 576 × 1 | 64 × 64 | 32 |
| Cropping | 512 × 512 × 1 | 512 × 512 × 1 | - | - |
| Output | 512 × 512 × 1 | 512 × 512 × 1 | - | - |
Evaluation Analysis of the Proposed and benchmark method.
| Parameters | Proposed Method | U-Net |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 99 | 96 |
| Precision | 97 | 96 |
| Sensitivity | 98 | 95.2 |
| DSC | 97.5 | 95.4 |
| IoU | 97.1 | 95.3 |
Figure 4Segmentation output results of the proposed and benchmark methods.
Comparison of the proposed method with other existing studies.
| Authors | Method | Dataset | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Huitong et al. [ | SGUNET | TDID | 93.6 |
| Wu et al. [ | U-Net (backbone) | Private Dataset | 93.19 |
| Haji et al. [ | SSHOS | TDID | 96 |
| Abdolali et al. [ | Mask R-CNN | Private Dataset | 84 |
| Liu et al. [ | ResNet-50 (backbone) | Private Dataset | 97.1 |
| Nguyen et al. [ | ResNet + InceptionNet | TDID | 92.05 |
| Proposed Method | VGG-16 (backbone) | TDID | 99 |