| Literature DB >> 35309999 |
Xindong Liu1, Mengnan Wang2, Rukhma Aftab2.
Abstract
In order to more accurately and comprehensively characterize the changes and development rules of lesion characteristics in pulmonary medical images in different periods, the study was conducted to predict the evolution of pulmonary nodules in the longitudinal dimension of time, and a benign and malignant prediction model of pulmonary lesions in different periods was constructed under multiscale three-dimensional (3D) feature fusion. According to the sequence of computed tomography (CT) images of patients at different stages, 3D interpolation was conducted to generate 3D lung CT images. The 3D features of different size lesions in the lungs were extracted using 3D convolutional neural networks for fusion features. A time-modulated long short-term memory was constructed to predict the benign and malignant lesions by using the improved time-length memory method to learn the feature vectors of lung lesions with temporal and spatial characteristics in different periods. The experiment shows that the area under the curve of the proposed method is 92.71%, which is higher than that of the traditional method.Entities:
Keywords: 3D CNNs; characteristics of the fusion; multiscale three-dimensional feature; prediction; pulmonary lesions; time-modulated LSTM
Year: 2022 PMID: 35309999 PMCID: PMC8924408 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.791424
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Long-term sequence of lung lesions.
FIGURE 2The framework of our proposed network.
FIGURE 3The main network structure of multiscale 3D CNN framework. C is the 3D convolutional layer; MP represents the 3D maximum pooling layer, whereas FC is the full connection layer.
Architecture of the multilevel contextual 3D CNNs.
| Archi-1 | Archi-2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layer | Kernel | Channel | Layer | Kernel | Channel |
| Input | — | 1 | Input | — | 1 |
| C1 | 5 × 5 × 5 | 64 | C1 | 5 × 5 × 5 | 64 |
| M1 | 2 × 2 × 2 | 64 | M1 | 2 × 2 × 2 | 64 |
| C2 | 2 × 2 × 2 | 128 | C2 | 5 × 5 × 5 | 128 |
| M2 | 2 × 2 × 2 | 128 | M2 | 2 × 2 × 2 | 128 |
| C3 | 3 × 3 × 3 | 256 | C3 | 2 × 2 × 2 | 256 |
| FC1 | 256 | FC1 | — | 256 | |
FIGURE 4T-LSTM cell.
The classification results and network parameters on NLST test set.
| Method | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | F1 score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:20 + Dropout | 0.801 | 0.999 | 0.905 | 0.891 |
| 1:20 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.752 | 0.998 | 0.883 | 0.863 |
| 1:10 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.861 | 0.998 | 0.921 | 0.904 |
| 1:5 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.908 | 0.994 | 0.949 | 0.923 |
| 1:3 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.917 | 0.994 | 0.953 | 0.913 |
| 1:2 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.924 | 0.991 | 0.957 | 0.924 |
| 1:2 + Dropout + Maxnorm + Lecun | 0.932 |
| 0.954 | 0.917 |
| 1:2 + Dropout + Maxnorm + Lecun + Aug | 0.943 |
|
| 0.929 |
The bold values is the best performance.
The classification results and network parameters on cooperative hospital test set.
| Method | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | F1score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:20 + Dropout | 0.711 | 0.908 | 0.815 | 0.864 |
| 1:20 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.705 | 0.900 | 0.800 | 0.848 |
| 1:10 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.721 | 0.908 | 0.817 | 0.864 |
| 1:5 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.717 | 0.907 | 0.813 | 0.871 |
| 1:3 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.709 | 0.886 | 0.799 | 0.862 |
| 1:2 + Dropout + Maxnorm | 0.698 | 0.870 | 0.779 | 0.952 |
| 1:2 + Dropout + Maxnorm + Lecun | 0.760 | 0.943 | 0.851 | 0.878 |
| 1:2 + Dropout + Maxnorm + Lecun + Aug | 0.814 |
| 0.880 | 0.901 |
The bold values is the best performance.
Comparison of prediction performance of different methods.
| Algorithm | ACC (%) | Pre (%) | Rec (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 0.812 | 0.818 | 0.813 | 0.819 |
| tanh-RNN | 0.871 | 0.936 | 0.778 | 0.874 |
| LSTM | 0.911 | 0.943 | 0.875 | 0.903 |
| T-LSTM |
|
|
|
|
The bold values is the best performance.
Results for all models, AUROC, and specificity at sensitivity (SPC@SEN) of 0.87, with 95% confidence interval (CI) displayed in brackets.
| AUROC [CI] | SPC@SEN 0.87 [CI] | |
|---|---|---|
| LSTM | 0.82 [0.732–0.821] | 0.62 [0.401–0.705] |
| xgb | 0.84 [0.789–0.880] | 0.75 [0.534–0.721] |
| BI-LSTM | 0.90 [0.802–0.908] | 0.72 [0.543–0.813] |
| T-LSTM |
| 0.78 [0.561–0.921] |
| RNN | 0.88 [0.744–0.851] | 0.59 [0.371–0.752] |
*p < 1e-6 compared with RNN. The bold values is the best performance.
FIGURE 5Layer number experimental result diagram.
FIGURE 6Comparison of convergence LER results between T-LSTM and BI-LSTM and LSTM.
FIGURE 8ROC curve of each model. Blue is LSTM; orange is gradient boost (xgb); green is BiLSTM; red is T-LSTM; and purple is RNN.