| Literature DB >> 35155680 |
Swati P Pawar1, Sanjay N Talbar2.
Abstract
High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) images in interstitial lung disease (ILD) screening can help improve healthcare quality. However, most of the earlier ILD classification work involves time-consuming manual identification of the region of interest (ROI) from the lung HRCT image before applying the deep learning classification algorithm. This paper has developed a two-stage hybrid approach of deep learning networks for ILD classification. A conditional generative adversarial network (c-GAN) has segmented the lung part from the HRCT images at the first stage. The c-GAN with multiscale feature extraction module has been used for accurate lung segmentation from the HRCT images with lung abnormalities. At the second stage, a pretrained ResNet50 has been used to extract the features from the segmented lung image for classification into six ILD classes using the support vector machine classifier. The proposed two-stage algorithm takes a whole HRCT as input eliminating the need for extracting the ROI and classifies the given HRCT image into an ILD class. The performance of the proposed two-stage deep learning network-based ILD classifier has improved considerably due to the stage-wise improvement of deep learning algorithm performance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35155680 PMCID: PMC8826206 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7340902
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Architecture of the two-stage hybrid approach.
Figure 2Conditional generative adversarial network (c-GAN) used for lung segmentation at stage 1.
Details of the ResNet50 network for extracting deep features at stage 2.
| Layer name | Optimal size | Sublayer |
|---|---|---|
| CONV1 | 112 × 112 | 7 × 7, 64, stride 2 |
| CONV2_x | 56 × 56 | 3 × 3 max pool stride 2 |
| CONV3_x | 28 × 28 |
|
| CONV4_x | 14 × 14 |
|
| CONV5_x | 7 × 7 |
|
| 1 × 1 | Average pool, 1000-d fc, softmax | |
| FLOPs | 3.8 × 109 | |
Comparative performance assessment of average DSC and J for c-GAN and existing methods for lung segmentation.
| Disease | Performance | Present study | NMF [ | UNet [ | ResNet [ | VGG16 [ | MobileNet [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fibrosis | DSC | 0.9566 | 0.7681 | 0.9485 | 0.9126 | 0.9295 | 0.9040 |
|
| 0.9290 | 0.6600 | 0.9117 | 0.8681 | 0.8742 | 0.8330 | |
|
| |||||||
| Ground glass | DSC | 0.9558 | 0.8335 | 0.9534 | 0.9351 | 0.9444 | 0.9291 |
|
| 0.9282 | 0.7473 | 0.9191 | 0.8987 | 0.8975 | 0.8706 | |
|
| |||||||
| Emphysema | DSC | 0.9378 | 0.9214 | 0.9629 | 0.9261 | 0.9452 | 0.9380 |
|
| 0.9204 | 0.8917 | 0.9340 | 0.8975 | 0.8963 | 0.8841 | |
|
| |||||||
| Consolidation | DSC | 0.9712 | 0.8775 | 0.9500 | 0.9440 | 0.9479 | 0.9436 |
|
| 0.9466 | 0.7963 | 0.9148 | 0.9076 | 0.9031 | 0.8954 | |
|
| |||||||
| Micronodule | DSC | 0.9812 | 0.9678 | 0.9807 | 0.9674 | 0.9751 | 0.9586 |
|
| 0.9645 | 0.9391 | 0.9627 | 0.9379 | 0.9523 | 0.9210 | |
Figure 3Examples of HRCT of six ILD. (The first row shows original HRCT images and the second row shows respective segmented image.)
Confusion matrix of the proposed classifier (mean and variation values with 95% confidence interval).
| Actual cases | Prediction (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emphysema | Fibrosis | Ground glass | Normal | Micronodules | Consolidation | |
| Emphysema | 93.24 ± 1.66 | 5.56 ± 1.36 | 0.37 ± 0.34 | 0.00 | 0.37 ± 0.34 | 0.46 ± 0.46 |
| Fibrosis | 0.55 ± 0.23 | 89.26 ± 1.54 | 4.43 ± 0.91 | 0.22 ± 0.14 | 0.77 ± 0.46 | 4.76 ± 0.77 |
| Ground glass | 0.28 ± 0.26 | 5.27 ± 1.37 | 84.44 ± 2.17 | 4.70 ± 0.87 | 2.23 ± 0.84 | 3.08 ± 0.66 |
| Normal | 0.05 ± 0.06 | 0.16 ± 0.13 | 2.57 ± 1.14 | 94.65 ± 1.59 | 2.55 ± .70 | 0.02 ± 0.05 |
| Micronodules | 0.02 ± 0.04 | 0.26 ± 0.19 | 4.56 ± 0.73 | 3.45 ± 0.85 | 90.64 ± 1.42 | 1.06 ± 0.41 |
| Consolidation | 0.10 ± 0.08 | 9.84 ± 1.21 | 4.67 ± 0.67 | 0.21 ± 0.19 | 1.07 ± 0.43 | 84.12 ± 1.29 |
ILD classifier interactive performance analysis of the proposed algorithm.
| Emphysema | Fibrosis | Ground glass | Normal | Micronodules | Consolidation | Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision (%) | 98.94 | 80.89 | 83.57 | 91.68 | 92.84 | 89.96 | 89.65 |
| Recall (%) | 93.24 | 89.26 | 84.44 | 94.65 | 90.64 | 84.12 | 89.39 |
|
| 96.00 | 84.87 | 84.00 | 93.14 | 91.73 | 86.94 | 89.45 |
| AUC | 0.9960 | 0.9769 | 0.9811 | 0.9969 | 0.9948 | 0.9793 | 0.9875 |
Figure 4ROC plots of SVM classifier for the six ILD classes.
Comparison of the proposed classifier with the earlier CNN-based classifiers.
| Method | Image input type |
| Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Li et al. [ | ROI patch | 66.57 | 67.05 |
| LeNet [ | ROI patch | 67.83 | 67.90 |
| AlexNet [ | ROI patch | 70.31 | 71.04 |
| Pretrained AlexNet [ | ROI patch | 75.82 | 76.09 |
| VGGNet [ | ROI patch | 78.04 | 78.00 |
| Doddavarapu et al. [ | ROI patch | 94.65 | 94.67 |
| Gao et al. [ | Whole HRCT | 66.83 | 69.23 |
| Proposed two-stage hybrid classifier |
|
|
|