| Literature DB >> 35125928 |
Amit Kumar Chanchal1, Shyam Lal1, Jyoti Kini2.
Abstract
To improve the process of diagnosis and treatment of cancer disease, automatic segmentation of haematoxylin and eosin (H & E) stained cell nuclei from histopathology images is the first step in digital pathology. The proposed deep structured residual encoder-decoder network (DSREDN) focuses on two aspects: first, it effectively utilized residual connections throughout the network and provides a wide and deep encoder-decoder path, which results to capture relevant context and more localized features. Second, vanished boundary of detected nuclei is addressed by proposing an efficient loss function that better train our proposed model and reduces the false prediction which is undesirable especially in healthcare applications. The proposed architecture experimented on three different publicly available H&E stained histopathological datasets namely: (I) Kidney (RCC) (II) Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) (III) MoNuSeg-2018. We have considered F1-score, Aggregated Jaccard Index (AJI), the total number of parameters, and FLOPs (Floating point operations), which are mostly preferred performance measure metrics for comparison of nuclei segmentation. The evaluated score of nuclei segmentation indicated that the proposed architecture achieved a considerable margin over five state-of-the-art deep learning models on three different histopathology datasets. Visual segmentation results show that the proposed DSREDN model accurately segment the nuclear regions than those of the state-of-the-art methods.Entities:
Keywords: Histopathology images; Kidney cancer diagnosis and prognosis; Nuclei segmentation; Residual learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35125928 PMCID: PMC8809220 DOI: 10.1007/s11042-021-11873-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Multimed Tools Appl ISSN: 1380-7501 Impact factor: 2.577
Summary of state-of-the-art DL techniques used for segmentation of medical images
| Author | Application | Dataset | Modalities | Method | Toolbox | Activation Function | Loss Function | Optimizer | Performance Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ronneberger et al. [ | Cell segmentation | ISBI- 2012 | Light microscopic images | 2D-CNN, Repeated application of Max-pooling and Up-convolution | Caffe | ReLu and Sigmoid | Cross-entropy | SGD | IOU= 92% for PhC-U373 and 77% for DIC-HeLa |
| Milletari F et al. [ | Clinical | PROMISE 2012 | MRI | Volumetric convolution, Feature channels doubles at each stage | Caffe | PReLu and Softmax | Dice loss | Standard back-propagation | Avg. Dice= 86.9% |
| Nogues et al. [ | Lymph node cluster segmentation | MICCAI 2015 | CT | Holistically-nested neural network, Structured optimization | Caffe | ReLu and Sigmoid | Cross-entropy and Auxiliary loss | SGD | Mean Dice coefficient= 82.1% ± 9.6% |
| He et al. [ | Image recognition | ImageNet, CIFAR-10 | 1000 classes and 10 classes (Colored images) | Deep residual learning, Identity mapping by shortcuts | Caffe | Softmax | Cross-entropy | SGD | Error= 3.57%, 6.43% |
| Chen et al. [ | Gland segmentation | Warwick-QU | Histopathology | 2D-CNN, Auxiliary supervision, Transfer learning | Caffe | Softmax | Formulated loss based on per-pixel classification | Standard back-propagation | |
| Huang et al. [ | Classification of natural images | CIFAR-10, 100, SVHN, and ImageNet | Colored images | Feature-maps of all preceding layers are used as inputs | Keras, Tensorflow | ReLu, Softmax | Categorical crossentropy | SGD | Error= 5.19%, 19.64%, 1.59% |
| Salehi et al. [ | Training with unbalanced data | MICCAI 2008 | MRI | 3D fully convolutional network based on the UNet architecture | Nvidia Geforce GTX1080 GPU | ReLu, Softmax | Tversky | Adam | DSC= 56.42%, |
| Sudre et al. [ | Training with unbalanced data | BRATS | MRI | 2D and 3D deep learning framework | Tensorflow | ReLu and Sigmoid | Dice | SGD | Dice loss was found to be more robust than the other loss functions |
| Badrinarayanan et al. [ | Indoor and road segmentation | CamVid, SUN RGB-D | RGB | Fully convolutional encoder decoder | Caffe | ReLu and Softmax | Cross-entropy | SGD | Mean IoU= 60.10, 31.84 |
| Hashemi et al. [ | Medical image segmentation | MSSEG-2016,ISBI | MRI | 3D fully convolutional, 3D densely connected architecture | Nvidia Geforce GTX1080 GPU | ReLu and Softmax | Asymmetric similarity | Adam | Average Dice= 69.9%, 65.74% |
| Naylor et al. [ | Segmentation of Nuclei | TNBC, TCGA | Histopathology | Fully convolutional network | Python 3, tensorflow | ReLu and Softmax | Regression loss | Adam | AJI= 55.98%, |
| Schlemper et al. [ | Medical image analysis | TCIA Pancreas, Multi-class abdominal | CT | Focuses on target structures by employing attention gate | PyTorch | ReLu and Sigmoid | Dice | SGD | Dice score (TCIA)= 82%, (Multi-class abdominal) = 84% |
| Lal et al. [ | Liver cancer analysis | KMC liver | Histopathology | Employed residual block, attention mechanism, and joint loss function | TensorFlow 2.0, Keras | ReLu and Sigmoid | Formulated joint loss (Dice and Jaccard) | Adam | |
| Malekijoo et al. [ | Indoor and road segmentation | CamVid | RGB | Convolution deconvolution, Pyramid pooling | Python3, Tensorflow 1.4 | ReLu and Softmax | Cross entropy | Adam | Mean IoU = 48.90%, Accuracy= 88.49% |
| Zhou et al. [ | Low contrast medical image segmentation | Pelvic CT, Brain tumor, Nuclei segmentation | CT, MR and, Microscopic | Multiscale dense connections, high resolution pathways | Caffe | ReLu and Sigmoid | Difficulty guided cross-entropy | Adam | Dice ratio= 95%, 90%, and |
| Lal et al. [ | Nuclei segmentation | Gold-standard, KMC | Histopathology | Adaptive colour de-convolution, Multilevel thresholding | Python-3 | – | – | – | Pr, Re, |
| Karimi et al. [ | Medical image segmentation | TRUS, PROMISE12, 3D CT-Liver, and 3D CT-Pancreas | Ultrasound, MR, and CT | Distance transform, Morphological erosion, Spherical convolution kernels | Python 3.6, TensorFlow 1.2 | Softmax | Hausdorff distance | Adam | DSC= 95%, 87%, 94%, 78% |
| Kumar et al. [ | Clinical | Multiple organs | Histopathology | A CNN that produces a ternary map | PyTorch, NVIDIA Tesla | ReLu and Softmax | Cross entropy | Standard back-propagation | AJI= 50.83%, |
| Chanchal et al. [ | Clinical | TNBC, Kidney, MoNuSeg | Histopathology | Separable convolution pyramid pooling in encoder-decoder network | Keras, TensorFlow, Python-3 | ReLu and Sigmoid | BCE | Adam | AJI= 70%, 86%, 67%, |
| Aatresh et al. [ | Clinical | Kidney, TNBC | Histopathology | Attention based encoder-decoder, ASPP, Dimension-wise convolutions | PyTorch | ReLu and Sigmoid | Global | Adam | AJI= 87%, 70%, |
| Chanchal et al. [ | Clinical | TNBC, Kidney, MoNuSeg | Histopathology | High-resolution encoder-decoder path, An ASPP at bottleneck | Keras, TensorFlow, Python-3 | ReLu and Sigmoid | BCE | Adam | AJI= 73%, 94%, 72%, |
Fig. 1Proposed deep structured residual encoder-decoder network
Fig. 2High resolution encoder path (Left) and decoder path (Right)
Fig. 3Max Pooling, step size S = 2 kernel K = 2
Fig. 4Internal co-variate shift of batches
Superiority of proposed loss function F1/AJI with benchmark model
| Dataset Model | (Kidney) UNet | (TNBC) UNet | (MoNuSeg) UNet | (Kidney) Proposed | (TNBC) Proposed | (MoNuSeg) Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCE | 0.8537/0.7489 | 0.7324/0.6559 | 0.7278/0.6029 | 0.9422/0.8994 | 0.8008/0.6698 | 0.7854/0.6675 |
| Dice | 0.8699/0.7631 | 0.7470/0.6690 | 0.7186/0.5991 | 0.9479/0.9044 | 0.8100/0.6828 | 0.7927/0.6607 |
| WBCE | 0.8408/0.7376 | 0.7360/0.6585 | 0.7168/0.5938 | 0.9460/0.9115 | 0.7930/0.6588 | 0.7919/0.6597 |
| Focal | 0.8622/0.7563 | 0.7228/0.6467 | 0.7399/0.6088 | 0.9346/0.8990 | 0.8175/0.6928 | 0.7940/0.6619 |
| Tvesky | 0.8793/0.7713 | 0.7573/0.6782 | 0.7423/0.6149 | 0.9286/0.9040 | 0.8346/0.7182 | 0.7810/0.6513 |
| BCE+Dice | 0.8479/0.7329 | 0.7250/0.6493 | 0.7321/0.6065 | 0.9472/0.9010 | 0.8087/0.6796 | 0.7950/0.6637 |
| Proposed Loss |
Values in bold indicate the highest performance score of the proposed loss function among other comparable loss functions
Fig. 5Accuracy and loss plots (Kidney Dataset) (a) Accuracy plot with proposed loss function (b) Accuracy plot with BCE loss function (c) Loss plot with proposed loss function (d) Loss plot with BCE loss function
Fig. 6Accuracy and loss plot (TNBC Dataset) (a) Accuracy plot with proposed loss function (b) Accuracy plot with BCE loss function (c) loss plot with proposed loss function (d) Loss plot with BCE loss function
Fig. 7Accuracy and loss plot (MoNuSeg Dataset) (a) accuracy plot with proposed loss function (b) accuracy plot with BCE loss function (c) loss plot with proposed loss function (d) loss plot with BCE loss function
Performance comparison of different models with three datasets
| Model | F1 | AJI | F1 | AJI | F1 | AJI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Kidney Dataset) | (TNBC Dataset) | (MoNuSeg Dataset) | ||||
| Unet [ | 0.8537 | 0.7489 | 0.7324 | 0.6559 | 0.7278 | 0.6029 |
| SegNet [ | 0.8972 | 0.8304 | 0.7685 | 0.6434 | 0.7879 | 0.6514 |
| Dist [ | 0.8992 | 0.8272 | 0.7516 | 0.6727 | 0.7795 | 0.6467 |
| Att. UNet [ | 0.9135 | 0.8590 | 0.7216 | 0.6194 | 0.7735 | 0.6315 |
| HMEDN [ | 0.9262 | 0.8676 | 0.8124 | 0.7017 | 0.7865 | 0.6522 |
| Proposed Model | ||||||
Values in bold indicate the highest performance score of the proposed model among other comparable models
Computational complexity comparison of different models
| Model | Parameters(millions) | FLOPs(millions) |
|---|---|---|
| Unet [ | 31.3 | 62.7 |
| SegNet [ | 18.8 | 47 |
| Dist [ | 7.7 | 15.5 |
| Att. UNet [ | 31.9 | 63.7 |
| HMEDN [ | 0.20 | 0.45 |
| Proposed Model |
Values in bold indicate the highest performance score of the proposed model among other comparable models
Fig. 8Comparison of predicted nuclear regions of five state-of-the-art models on kidney images
Fig. 9Comparison of predicted nuclear regions of five state-of-the-art models on TNBC images
Fig. 10Comparison of predicted nuclear regions of five state-of-the-art models on MoNuSeg images