| Literature DB >> 35388326 |
Yuanyuan Zhang1, Jing Hou2, Qiaoyun Wang2, Aiqin Hou3, Yanni Liu1.
Abstract
Ultrasound imaging technology has the advantages of noninvasiveness, real-time, low price, and easy operation. It is one of the most used diagnostic tools for early detection and classification of premature ovarian failure. Although the rapid development of computer-aided diagnosis has provided a great help to the ultrasound diagnosis of premature ovarian failure, it still has many limitations and shortcomings, so this paper adopts transfer learning and feature fusion algorithms to improve the identification and prediction efficiency of premature ovarian failure. In this study, the POF group and the control group both adopted a unified scale. From the four aspects of sociological characteristics, past medical history, environmental factors, and living habits, a dedicated person asked and filled out the scale face to face. All patients participating in the experiment underwent ultrasound examinations. In this paper, the bottom-level feature fusion method is used to improve classification performance. The experiment uses 100 epochs. After each epoch training is completed, we used all the data and labels of the target domain to test. All experiments were performed five times, and the result is the average of five experiments. All the results of baseline and direct classification without migration use the average of five experimental results as the result. Migrating the features extracted by the InceptionV3 network has the best performance for predicting premature ovarian failure. Its classification accuracy is as high as 85.13%, and the F1 value is 0.78. The results show that the migration learning and feature fusion algorithms used in this paper can provide reliable predictive analysis and decision support for doctors in the diagnosis of premature ovarian failure.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35388326 PMCID: PMC8977322 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3269692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Premature ovarian failure.
Figure 2Feature fusion diagram.
Figure 3Comparison of classification results of different classification models.
Figure 4Cross-modal retrieval of different methods in SVMD mAP@Top10(%).
The relevant indicators of the diagnostic accuracy of the three-dimensional ultrasound parameters in the DOR group and the POF group.
| Diagnostic tipping point | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden Index | AUC(95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFC | 3.50 | 0.925 | 0.783 | 0.708 | 0.929(0.897,0.961) |
| OV | 3.04 | 0.958 | 0.750 | 0.708 | 0.931(0.900,0.961) |
| VI | 0.837 | 0.942 | 0.767 | 0.709 | 0.934(0.905,0.964) |
| FI | 25.242 | 0.925 | 0.733 | 0.658 | 0.929(0.897,0.960) |
| VFI | 0.230 | 0.942 | 0.842 | 0.784 | 0.954(0.930,0.978) |
The influence of LSTM structure on the prediction and recognition rate of premature ovarian failure.
| SE-GoogLeNet | VGG | AlexNet | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single layer of 128 neurons | 0.5216 | 0.5042 | 0.3982 |
| Single layer of 256 neurons | 0.5784 | 0.5433 | 0.4196 |
| Single layer of 512 neurons | 0.5991 | 0.5787 | 0.4333 |
| Single layer of 1024 neurons | 0.5836 | 0.5325 | 0.4716 |
| Double layer 128 neurons | 0.5318 | 0.5099 | 0.4183 |
| Double layer 256 neurons | 0.5802 | 0.5600 | 0.4359 |
Model prediction results.
| Feature selection prediction model | Stepwise regression | Lasso | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR | SVM | LR | SVM | |
| AUC | 0.715 | 0.732 | 0.711 | 0.737 |
| SE | 0.040 | 0.039 | 0.040 | 0.039 |
| 95%CI | [0.637,0.793] | [0.656,0.808] | [0.630,0.789] | [0.634,0.793] |
| FI-measure | 0.700 | 0.738 | 0.689 | 0.746 |
| Sensitivity | 0.684 | 0.758 | 0.681 | 0.758 |
| Specificity | 0.639 | 0.611 | 0.653 | 0.639 |
Figure 5Comparison of ultrasound examination results before and after hormone replacement therapy in POF patients.
Figure 6Jaccard value obtained by reducing different dimensions after feature fusion.
Comparison of surgical conditions of patients.
| index | POF group | Normal group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intraoperative blood loss (ml) | 38.2 ± 23.4 | 65.6 ± 26.6 | −8.570 | 0.000 |
| Operation time (min) | 8.4 ± 2.3 | 12.4 ± 2.8 | −3.478 | 0.000 |
| Number of bipolar coagulation (times) | 48.2 ± 28.3 | 120.3 ± 30.4 | −9.787 | 0.000 |
| Maximum body temperature after operation (°C) | 37.6 ± 0.9 | 37.4 ± 0.8 | −0.678 | 0.480 |
| Postoperative anal exhaust time (h) | 19.8 ± 9.4 | 21.9 ± 10.2 | −0.952 | 0.454 |
| Postoperative abdominal drainage (ml) | 70.8 ± 30.8 | 75.9 ± 40.5 | 0.537 | 0.628 |