| Literature DB >> 35004897 |
Xiaojie Huang1, Lizhao Mao2, Xiaoyan Wang2, Zhongzhao Teng3, Minghan Shao2, Jiefei Gao2, Ming Xia2, Zhanpeng Shao2.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common disease with high mortality rate, and carotid atherosclerosis (CAS) is one of the leading causes of cardiovascular disease. Multisequence carotid MRI can not only identify carotid atherosclerotic plaque constituents with high sensitivity and specificity, but also obtain different morphological features, which can effectively help doctors improve the accuracy of diagnosis. However, it is difficult to evaluate the accurate evolution of local changes in carotid atherosclerosis in multi-sequence MRI due to the inconsistent parameters of different sequence images and the geometric space mismatch caused by the motion deviation of tissues and organs. To solve these problems, we propose a cross-scale multi-modal image registration method based on the Siamese U-Net. The network uses sub-networks with image inputs of different sizes to extract various features, and a special padding module is designed to make the network available for training on cross-scale features. In addition, to improve the registration performance, a multi-scale loss function under Gaussian smoothing is applied for optimization. For the experiments, we have collected a multi-sequence MRI image dataset from 11 patients with carotid atherosclerosis for a retrospective study. We evaluate our overall architectures by cross-validation on our carotid dataset. The experimental results show that our method can generate precise and reliable results with cross-scale multi-sequence inputs and the registration accuracy can be greatly improved by using the Gaussian smoothing loss function. The DSC of our Siamese structure can reach 84.1% on the carotid data set with cross-size input. With the use of GDSC loss, the average DSC can be improved by 5.23%, while the average distance between fixed landmarks and moving landmarks can be decreased by 6.46%.Our code is made publicly available at: https://github.com/MingHan98/Cross-scale-Siamese-Unet.Entities:
Keywords: Siamese network; atherosclerosis; carotid artery; cross-scale; image registration; multi-sequence MRI
Year: 2021 PMID: 35004897 PMCID: PMC8740957 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.785523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1The lesion in a carotid artery.
Figure 2An example of cropped carotid artery MR sequences.
Figure 3Example of labeled carotid bifurcations and plaques.
Figure 4The framework of cross-scale Siamese U-Net. (A) The inputs of Siamese U-Net containing an image pair and a label pair. (B) The feature extraction sub-network of down sampling. (C) The padding module. (D) The up-sampling structure to restore the feature size of deformable displacement field.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of Gaussian blur under different variances.
Registration performance of cross-size carotid artery input.
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| DSC (%) | 0.825 | 0.816 |
|
| 0.741 | 0.756 |
| Lm.Dist (mm) |
| 1.349 | 1.305 |
| 1.339 | 1.435 |
| Time (s) |
|
| 0.297 | 0.311 | 0.405 | 0.384 |
All the best results are in bold.
Registration performance of different networks on carotid artery and BraTS datasets.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Unet | 0.767 | 0.954 | 0.267 | 0.848 | 2.045 | 0.627 |
| MultiResUnet | 0.762 | 1.418 | 0.284 | 0.794 | 4.856 | 0.581 |
| AttentionUnet | 0.823 | 1.262 | 0.232 | 0.858 | 1.966 | 0.632 |
| Unet + CAN | 0.833 | 0.757 | 0.241 |
| 1.812 | 0.612 |
| MultiResUnet + CAN | 0.811 | 1.421 | 0.217 | 0.821 |
| 0.679 |
| AttentionUnet + CAN | 0.839 |
|
| 0.862 | 1.886 |
|
| Siam Unet | 0.825 | 1.127 | 0.239 | 0.827 | 2.243 | 0.781 |
| Siam MultiResUnet | 0.741 | 1.339 | 0.405 | 0.829 | 2.906 | 0.773 |
| Siam AttentionUnet |
| 1.305 | 0.297 | 0.867 | 2.095 | 0.703 |
All the best results are in bold.
Figure 63D visualization of atherosclerotic carotid artery before and after registration.
Figure 7The DVF visualization of carotid artery slices before and after registration. (A) The input T1GD image (B) the input TOF image (C) DVF visualization after registration.
Registration performance of carotid artery under different loss functions.
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Unet | 0.767 |
| 0.825 | 0.954 |
| 1.103 | 0.267 | 0.213 |
|
| MultiResUnet | 0.762 | 0.795 |
| 1.418 | 1.578 |
|
| 0.297 | 0.307 |
| AttentionUnet | 0.823 | 0.843 |
| 1.262 |
| 1.081 | 0.232 |
| 0.249 |
All the best results are in bold.
Registration performance of carotid artery using different variance set.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| σ = 0,1 | DSC (%) | 0.785 | 0.766 | 0.831 |
| Lm.Dist (mm) | 1.180 | 1.437 | 1.205 | |
| Time (s) | 0.241 |
| 0.257 | |
| σ = 0,1,2 | DSC (%) | 0.803 | 0.783 | 0.828 |
| TRE (mm) | 1.206 | 1.393 | 1.217 | |
| Time (s) | 0.236 | 0.315 | 0.251 | |
| σ = 0,1,2,4 | DSC (%) |
|
| 0.842 |
| Lm.Dist (mm) |
| 1.223 | 1.101 | |
| Time (s) | 0.217 | 0.302 |
| |
| σ = 0,1,2,4,8 | DSC (%) | 0.825 | 0.803 |
|
| Lm.Dist (mm) | 1.103 |
|
| |
| Time (s) |
| 0.307 | 0.249 | |
All the best results are in bold.