| Literature DB >> 35328251 |
Mahsa Mojtahedi1, Manon Kappelhof2, Elena Ponomareva3, Manon Tolhuisen1, Ivo Jansen3, Agnetha A E Bruggeman2, Bruna G Dutra2, Lonneke Yo4, Natalie LeCouffe5, Jan W Hoving2, Henk van Voorst1, Josje Brouwer5, Nerea Arrarte Terreros1, Praneeta Konduri1, Frederick J A Meijer6, Auke Appelman7, Kilian M Treurniet8,9, Jonathan M Coutinho5, Yvo Roos5, Wim van Zwam10, Diederik Dippel11, Efstratios Gavves12, Bart J Emmer2, Charles Majoie2, Henk Marquering1.
Abstract
Thrombus imaging characteristics are associated with treatment success and functional outcomes in stroke patients. However, assessing these characteristics based on manual annotations is labor intensive and subject to observer bias. Therefore, we aimed to create an automated pipeline for consistent and fast full thrombus segmentation. We used multi-center, multi-scanner datasets of anterior circulation stroke patients with baseline NCCT and CTA for training (n = 228) and testing (n = 100). We first found the occlusion location using StrokeViewer LVO and created a bounding box around it. Subsequently, we trained dual modality U-Net based convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to segment the thrombus inside this bounding box. We experimented with: (1) U-Net with two input channels for NCCT and CTA, and U-Nets with two encoders where (2) concatenate, (3) add, and (4) weighted-sum operators were used for feature fusion. Furthermore, we proposed a dynamic bounding box algorithm to adjust the bounding box. The dynamic bounding box algorithm reduces the missed cases but does not improve Dice. The two-encoder U-Net with a weighted-sum feature fusion shows the best performance (surface Dice 0.78, Dice 0.62, and 4% missed cases). Final segmentation results have high spatial accuracies and can therefore be used to determine thrombus characteristics and potentially benefit radiologists in clinical practice.Entities:
Keywords: CT angiography; CT imaging; U-Net; convolutional neural network (CNN); ischemic stroke; segmentation; thrombus
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328251 PMCID: PMC8947334 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12030698
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Dataset characteristics. Numbers in the parenthesis show the 95% confidence interval.
| Dataset | % Right Hemisphere Affected | Average Thrombus Volume (mm | Average Thrombus Length (mm) | Average Hounsfield Value of Thrombus on NCCT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | 55 | 221 (196, 246) | 31 (28, 34) | 47 (45, 49) |
| Validation set | 55 | 187 (111, 263) | 23 (16, 29) | 45 (42, 48) |
| Test set | 48 | 168 (147, 188) | 32 (29, 36) | 50 (49, 51) |
Figure 1U-Net architecture. The number of input and output channels to each conv-block is depicted on the outside of the conv-block box. The number inside the conv-block box shows the number of channels after the first Conv3D operation.
Figure 2U-Net with two encoders where the features are combined using concatenation. The details of the Conv-block, MaxPool, and UpConv operations are similar to the U-Net with one encoder. For other feature fusion methods, namely add and weighted-sum, the concatenate operation was replaced by addition and weighted-sum, respectively.
Figure 3Implementation of the weighted-sum feature fusion. Since it is not possible to depict the original 4D structure, the features are depicted in 3D. A and B are the feature sets of the first and second modalities, respectively. The dotted arrows show the separation of the i-th channel from both the red and the blue feature-set, where and are the i-th channel of A and B. A convolutional operator is then used to combine these two channels into one channel, depicted as .
Figure 4Flow chart of the dynamic bounding box algorithm.
Comparing the properties and performance of different segmentation networks. Numbers in the parenthesis show the 95% confidence interval. Best performance in each metric is emphasized by bold text. Missed cases shows the percentage of cases with a Dice = 0 in the test set.
| Model | Number of Trainable Parameters | Dice | Surface Dice | Number of Non-Overlapping Connected Components | Volume ICC | 95th Percentile HD | Missed Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U-Net | 82M | 0.59 | 0.75 | 2.5 |
| 10.46 | 6% |
| Concatenate | 115M | 0.60 | 0.76 | 0.6 | 0.68 | 5.89 | 8% |
| Weighted-sum | 97M | 0.7 | 0.60 | 5.88 |
| ||
| Add | 96M | 0.53 | 0.69 | 0.3 | 0.49 | 11% | |
| U-Net with no CTA input | 82M | 0.38 | 0.51 | 0.41 | 7.75 | 26% |
Figure 5The 3D visualization of the NCCT scan. The segmentation prediction of the weighted-sum network is shown on a 2D slice of NCCT and CTA on top.
Figure 6Bland–Altman plot for thrombus volume based on weighted-sum predictions. The mean volume difference is shown as a horizontal line. The 95% of the differences between the ground truth and the predictions fall within the limits of agreement that is also depicted on the plot.
Average Dice and surface Dice of weighted-sum per occlusion location. Numbers in the parenthesis show 95% confidence interval. Number of thrombi for each occlusion location in the test set is shown as ‘number of cases’ and the number of cases for each occlusion location with Dice = 0 is shown as ‘missed cases’.
| Metric | ICA-T | M1 | M2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dice | 0.64 (0.57, 0.72) | 0.63 (0.58, 0.68) | 0.51 (0.29, 0.74) |
| Surface Dice | 0.78 (0.69, 0.87) | 0.79 (0.74, 0.85) | 0.66 (0.37, 0.95) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ablation study on the weighted-sum network. Numbers in the parenthesis show 95% confidence interval.
| Experiment | Dice | Surface Dice | Number of Non-Overlapping Connected Components | Volume ICC | 95th Percentile HD | Missed Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No moving bounding box | 0.60 | 0.75 | 0.6 | 0.67 | 5.58 | 9% |
| No flexible bounding box | 0.61 | 0.77 | 0.33 | 0.63 | 6.39 | 4% |
| No post-processing | 0.62 | 0.78 | 0.9 | 0.60 | 5.85 | 4% |
Figure 7Weighted-sum thrombus segmentation results for two patients. The segmentation prediction is depicted in red; (A) shows a difficult case in which the network is able to successfully segment a small thrombus where the hyperdense artery sign is not easily distinguishable from the background; (B) depicts a case where CTA shows that the thrombus is only partially present in the artery. Part of the non-occluded artery also shows as a hyperdense region on NCCT. Therefore, information from both NCCT and CTA is required to accurately annotate the thrombus. This figure shows that the network is able to discard the area with the visible contrast on CTA from the segmentation.
Figure 8A and B both show cases where weighted-sum predictions only partially agree with the ground truth. In figures (b,c), the prediction and ground truth are shown in red, respectively. In cases where the thrombus intensity decays gradually, it can be difficult to determine the extent of the thrombus, manually and automatically.
Figure 9Examples of cases with a Dice score higher than 0.6. The bounding box is used to limit the scan area for each case. Since the bounding box is three-dimensional, only the axial slice with the largest ground truth surface area is depicted. Different cases are represented in rows. The first three columns show NCCT and the right most image column shows the CTA image. The boundaries of the ground truth annotation (GT) and segmentation prediction (prediction) are shown in green and red, respectively. Dice and surface Dice values for the displayed 2D slice are shown at the right side for each row.
Figure 10Examples of cases with segmentation errors or a low Dice score. The bounding box is used to limit the scan area. Since the bounding box is three-dimensional, only the axial slice with the largest ground truth surface area is depicted. The boundaries of the ground truth annotation (GT) and segmentation prediction (prediction) are shown in green and red, respectively. Dice and surface Dice for the displayed 2D slice are shown at the right side for each row. The top-most row shows a missed case (Dice = 0). The second row shows a case with a non-zero overall Dice score where the network does not segment the thrombus in the presented axial slice.