| Literature DB >> 35047520 |
Yuanyuan Peng1,2, Zixu Zhang1, Hongbin Tu1,3, Xiong Li4.
Abstract
Background: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been spread widely in the world, causing a huge threat to the living environment of people. Objective: Under CT imaging, the structure features of COVID-19 lesions are complicated and varied greatly in different cases. To accurately locate COVID-19 lesions and assist doctors to make the best diagnosis and treatment plan, a deep-supervised ensemble learning network is presented for COVID-19 lesion segmentation in CT images.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 lesion segmentation; deep learning; deep-supervised ensemble learning network; local and global features; transfer learning; under CT imaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35047520 PMCID: PMC8761973 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.755309
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lesion segmentation with different methods.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deep-supervised learning | Yazdekhasty et al. ( | Good performance in sufficient data and model generalization | Mounts of voxel-based Data annotation |
| Wang et al. ( | |||
| Gao et al. ( | |||
| Semi-supervised learning | Zhao et al. ( | Good performance in lacking data | Parts of voxel-based Data annotation |
| Abdel-Basset et al. ( | |||
| Weakly supervised learning | Yang et al. ( | Class annotation | Poor segmentation in small lesions |
| Laradji et al. ( | |||
| Wu et al. ( | |||
| Wang et al. ( | |||
| Unsupervised learning | Yao et al. ( | No data annotations | Bad performance |
Figure 1An intersection over union (IoU) criterion.
Figure 2Hausdorff distance.
Figure 3A pipeline for COVID-19 lesion segmentation in CT images.
Figure 4UNet model.
Figure 5Pyramid attention network (PAN).
Figure 6DeepLabv3+ model.
Figure 7Feature pyramid network (FPN) model.
Figure 8Weighting parameters optimization. (A) w1 = 0.0. (B) w1 = 0.1. (C) w1 = 0.2. (D) w1 = 0.3. (E) w1 = 0.4. (F) w1 =0.5. (G) w1 = 0.6. (H) w1 = 0.7.
The maximum values of Z.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Z | ||
| 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 54.28 |
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 56.55 |
| 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 |
|
| 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 44.09 |
| 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0 | 42.54 |
| 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0 | 40.91 |
| 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 40.07 |
| 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 39.09 |
| 0.8 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 37.40 |
| 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 35.81 |
| 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35.08 |
Z = 108.83, is the largest values. It illustrates that the proposed method has the best segmentation performance in this case.
Architecture parameters with different networks.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Input image size | 512 × 512 |
| Output image size | 512 × 512 |
| Learning rate | 10−5 |
| Activation layers | Adam |
| Epochs | 300 |
| Batch size | 4 |
| Loss function | Dice |
Figure 9Segmentation of COVID-19 lesions with different deep learning methods. (A) CT slice. (B) Anotation. (C) DeepLabV3+. (D) Unet. (E) PAN. (F) FPN. (G) Linknet. (H) MAnet. (I) PSPnet. (J) The proposed method.
Figure 10COVID-19 lesion segmentation with different weighting parameters. (A) CT slice. (B) Anotation. (C) [0.2, 0.1, 0.5, 0.2]. (D) [0.1, 0, 0.9, 0]. (E) [0.4, 0, 0.3, 0, 0.3]. (F) [0.5, 0.5, 0, 0]. (G) [0.1, 0, 0, 0.9]. (H) [0, 0, 0.2, 0.8]. (I) [0, 0.7, 0.1, 0.2]. (J) [0.2, 0.1, 0.6, 0.1].
Figure 11Hausdorff distance with different methods. (A) CT slice. (B) Anotation. (C) DeepLabV3+. (D) Unet. (E) PAN. (F) FPN. (G) Linknet. (H) MAnet. (I) PSPnet. (J) The proposed method.
The IoU values with different methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| DeepLabV3+ ( | 0.7058 | 0.7886 | 99.8686 |
| Unet ( | 0.6927 | 0.7720 | 96.9404 |
| PAN ( | 0.7081 | 0.7931 | 97.6020 |
| FPN ( | 0.7031 | 0.7881 | 98.9161 |
| Linknet ( | 0.6883 | 0.7618 | 101.9168 |
| MAnet ( | 0.6067 | 0.7216 | 112.6191 |
| PSPnet ( | 0.6696 | 0.7557 | 104.5176 |
| The proposed method |
|
|
|
Compared with seven methods, the proposed method has the largest IoU value 0.7279 and F1 value 0.8065, which means that the proposed method has the best performance in regional sensitivity of COVID-19 lesion segmentation. What's more, the proposed method has the smallest H value 92.4604, which indicates that the computational model has the best performance in COVID-19 lesion boundary.
The relationship between the weighting parameters and the IoU index.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.6929 |
| 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.7083 |
| 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.7101 |
| 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.7108 |
| 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.7116 |
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.7232 |
| 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.7219 |
| 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.7150 |
| 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.7142 |
| 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.7120 |
| 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.7075 |
| 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.6951 |
| 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.7252 |
| 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.7229 |
| 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 |
|
Compared with different weighting parameters, the best weighting parameters are 0.2, 0.1, 0.6, and 0.1 and the maximum IoU value is 0.7279.