| Literature DB >> 35207796 |
Hanane Allioui1, Mazin Abed Mohammed2, Narjes Benameur3, Belal Al-Khateeb2, Karrar Hameed Abdulkareem4, Begonya Garcia-Zapirain5, Robertas Damaševičius6, Rytis Maskeliūnas6.
Abstract
Currently, most mask extraction techniques are based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs). However, there are still numerous problems that mask extraction techniques need to solve. Thus, the most advanced methods to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) techniques are necessary. The use of cooperative agents in mask extraction increases the efficiency of automatic image segmentation. Hence, we introduce a new mask extraction method that is based on multi-agent deep reinforcement learning (DRL) to minimize the long-term manual mask extraction and to enhance medical image segmentation frameworks. A DRL-based method is introduced to deal with mask extraction issues. This new method utilizes a modified version of the Deep Q-Network to enable the mask detector to select masks from the image studied. Based on COVID-19 computed tomography (CT) images, we used DRL mask extraction-based techniques to extract visual features of COVID-19 infected areas and provide an accurate clinical diagnosis while optimizing the pathogenic diagnostic test and saving time. We collected CT images of different cases (normal chest CT, pneumonia, typical viral cases, and cases of COVID-19). Experimental validation achieved a precision of 97.12% with a Dice of 80.81%, a sensitivity of 79.97%, a specificity of 99.48%, a precision of 85.21%, an F1 score of 83.01%, a structural metric of 84.38%, and a mean absolute error of 0.86%. Additionally, the results of the visual segmentation clearly reflected the ground truth. The results reveal the proof of principle for using DRL to extract CT masks for an effective diagnosis of COVID-19.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 segmentation; CT image; mask extraction; multi-agent reinforcement learning; semantic segmentation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207796 PMCID: PMC8880720 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12020309
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1Overview of the proposed method: 1. A complete mask extraction is processed using the automatic COVID-19 mask extraction system. 2. The adopted segmentation network is trained using the obtained masks. 3. The segmentation network can segment CT images and provide strong predictions. Coronavirus disease, COVID-19.
Figure 2Architecture for Tree-dimensional mask extraction using Reinforcement learning. Three-dimensional, (3D).
Figure 3RL Structure of MAS_SEG.
Figure 4State representation of the mask detector.
Figure 5Representation of MD actions.
Figure 6Schematic representation of MD architecture.
Statistical description of evaluation datasets.
| DataSet | %Slice with Infection |
|---|---|
| COVID-19-A [ | _ |
| COVID-19-B [ | 100% |
| COVID-19-C [ | 44.9% |
| COVID-19-D [ | 52.3% |
Summary of adopted evaluation metrics.
| Metrics | Formulas | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (ACC) |
| The ratio of correctly predicted pixels to the total number of pixels in the processed image. |
| Precision (Pc) |
| The ratio of correctly predicted lesion pixels to the total of expected lesion pixels. |
| Sensitivity (Sen) |
| The ratio of the correctly predicted lesion pixels to the total number of real lesion pixels. |
| F1 score (F1) |
| The ratio obtained from a combination of both precision and sensitivity results. |
| Specificity (Sp) |
| The ratio of correctly predicted normal pixels to the total number of actual normal pixels. |
| Dice coefficient (DC) |
| The similarity between the method output (Y) and the ground truth (X). |
| Structural metric (Sm) | Sm = (1 − β).Sos(Sop,Sgt) + β.Sor(Sop,Sgt) | The structural similarity between the prediction map and ground truth mask. |
| Mean Absolute Error (MAE) | Measures the pixel-wise difference. |
Figure 7Examples of visualized segmentation results. The red, green, and blue colors respectively denote the left lung, the right lung, and the infection.
Figure 8Performance evaluation of methods with an increasingly active learning budget ((a) the test performance variations; (b) the validation performance variations).
Figure 9Entropy of class distributions obtained from voxels of selected regions.
Figure 10Visual comparison of the segmentation results with other, former models.
Quantitative comparisons of ground truth for different, former models.
| ACC | DC | Sen | Sp | Pc | F1 | Sm | MAE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our approach | 0.9712 | 0.8081 | 0.7997 | 0.9948 | 0.8621 | 0.8301 | 0.8438 | 0.0086 |
| U-Net++ [ | 0.9687 | 0.7972 | 0.7845 | 0.9952 | 0.8437 | 0.8206 | 0.8623 | 0.0085 |
| COVNet [ | 0.9698 | 0.7754 | 0.7400 | 0.9959 | 0.8470 | 0.7930 | 0.8334 | 0.0094 |
| DeCoVNet [ | 0.9697 | 0.8020 | 0.8106 | 0.9962 | 0.8347 | 0.8116 | 0.8511 | 0.0107 |
| AlexNet [ | 0.8900 | 0.6910 | 0.8110 | 0.9930 | 0.9500 | 0.8062 | 0.8475 | 0.0125 |
| ResNet [ | 0.8984 | 0.7408 | 0.7608 | 0.9937 | 0.7549 | 0.7558 | 0.8080 | 0.0157 |