| Literature DB >> 35214396 |
Suigu Tang1, Xiaoyuan Yu1, Chak-Fong Cheang1, Zeming Hu1, Tong Fang1, I-Cheong Choi2, Hon-Ho Yu2.
Abstract
It is challenging for endoscopists to accurately detect esophageal lesions during gastrointestinal endoscopic screening due to visual similarities among different lesions in terms of shape, size, and texture among patients. Additionally, endoscopists are busy fighting esophageal lesions every day, hence the need to develop a computer-aided diagnostic tool to classify and segment the lesions at endoscopic images to reduce their burden. Therefore, we propose a multi-task classification and segmentation (MTCS) model, including the Esophageal Lesions Classification Network (ELCNet) and Esophageal Lesions Segmentation Network (ELSNet). The ELCNet was used to classify types of esophageal lesions, and the ELSNet was used to identify lesion regions. We created a dataset by collecting 805 esophageal images from 255 patients and 198 images from 64 patients to train and evaluate the MTCS model. Compared with other methods, the proposed not only achieved a high accuracy (93.43%) in classification but achieved a dice similarity coefficient (77.84%) in segmentation. In conclusion, the MTCS model can boost the performance of endoscopists in the detection of esophageal lesions as it can accurately multi-classify and segment the lesions and is a potential assistant for endoscopists to reduce the risk of oversight.Entities:
Keywords: classification; deep learning; esophageal lesions; gastrointestinal endoscopy; multi-task; segmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35214396 PMCID: PMC8876234 DOI: 10.3390/s22041492
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparison of the methods for esophageal lesion analysis.
| Methods | Tasks | Dataset | Image Type | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liu et al. [ | Classification | Private | Endoscopic image | 85.83% accuracy |
| Du et al. [ | Classification | Private | Endoscopic image | 90.63% accuracy |
| Liu et al. [ | Classification | Private | Endoscopic image | 89.00% accuracy |
| Igarashi et al. [ | Classification | Private | Endoscopic image | 96.5% accuracy |
| Kumagsi et al. [ | Classification | Private | Endoscopic image | 90.90% accuracy |
| Zhu et al. [ | Classification | Private | Endoscopic image | 89.16% accuracy |
| Wang et al. [ | Segmentation | Public | Endoscopic image | 74.00% intersection over union |
| Huang et al. [ | Segmentation | Private | Computed tomography | 72.55% dice similarity coefficient |
| Chen et al. [ | Segmentation | Private | Computed tomography | 79.00% dice similarity coefficient |
| Zhou et al. [ | Segmentation | Private | Computed tomography | 84.839% dice similarity coefficient |
| Yousefi et al. [ | Segmentation | Private | Computed tomography | 79.00% dice similarity coefficient |
Figure 1Workflow diagram for the training set and validation set of the MTCS model.
Figure 2The diagnostic procedure of the MTCS model.
Figure 3(a) Architecture of ELCNet; (b) architecture of ELSNet.
Comparison of the classification performance of our model and other methods.
| Methods | Pre-Trained | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Parameters | FLOPs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liu et al. [ | yes | 91.92% | 88.48% | 93.46% | 88.19% | 93.44% | 134.27 M | 123.84 G |
| Igarashi et al. [ | yes | 91.59% | 87.06% | 92.92% | 88.02% | 93.26% | 57.02 M | 5.69 G |
| Kumagai et al. [ | no | 91.92% | 88.71% | 93.54% | 87.89% | 93.39% | 6.30 M | 209.45 G |
| Zhu et al. [ | yes | 89.56% | 84.01% | 91.48% | 84.68% | 91.75% | 23.51 M | 32.87 G |
| Wang et al. [ | no | 90.91% | 86.00% | 92.45% | 86.87% | 92.71% | 21.29 M | 29.38 G |
| Our | yes | 93.43% | 92.82% | 96.20% | 94.25% | 96.62% | 14.79 M | 122.88 G |
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristic of ELCNet and other methods.
Figure 5The confusion matrix of ELCNet.
Figure 6(a–f) Comparison of cancer segmentation between ELSNet and other methods.
Comparison of the segmentation performance of our model and other methods.
| Methods | Pre-Trained | DSC | IoU | Parameters | FLOPs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ronneberger et al. [ | No | 75.11% | 61.84% | 31.04 M | 875.49 G |
| Oktay et al. [ | No | 75.78% | 62.34% | 34.88 M | 1.065 T |
| Gu et al. [ | Yes | 75.82% | 62.13% | 29.00 M | 142.60 G |
| Wang et al. [ | No | 74.31% | 60.96% | 29.53 M | 362.60 G |
| Jha et al. [ | No | 75.31% | 61.71% | 5.01 M | 993.96 G |
| Our | Yes | 77.84% | 65.63% | 9.18 M | 317.38 G |
Diagnostic performance of the MTCS model and the endoscopists.
| Performance | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our | 93.43% | 92.82% | 96.20% | 94.25% | 96.62% |
| Endoscopists | 83.84% | 78.90% | 87.90% | 76.41% | 87.45% |
The performance of the ELCNet with and without a pre-trained model.
| Pre-Trained | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Parameters | FLOPs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 93.43% | 92.82% | 96.20% | 94.25% | 96.62% | 14.79 M | 122.88 G |
| No | 89.40% | 88.83% | 93.92% | 90.54% | 94.46% | 14.79 M | 122.88 G |
The performance of the ELSNet with and without a pre-trained model and dilated convolution.
| Pre-Trained | Dilated Convolution | DSC | IoU | Parameters | FLOPs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Yes | 77.84% | 65.63% | 9.18 M | 317.38 G |
| Yes | No | 76.14% | 62.48% | 9.18 M | 298.34 G |
| No | No | 74.56% | 60.74% | 9.18 M | 298.34 G |