| Literature DB >> 35404833 |
Ela Bandari1, Tomas Beuzen1, Lara Habashy1, Javairia Raza1, Xudong Yang1, Jordanna Kapeluto2,3, Graydon Meneilly2,4, Kenneth Madden2,4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most common dermatological complication of insulin therapy is lipohypertrophy.Entities:
Keywords: diabetes; diagnostic ultrasound; insulin; lipohypertrophy; lipoma; machine learning; ultrasound images
Year: 2022 PMID: 35404833 PMCID: PMC9123536 DOI: 10.2196/34830
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Form Res ISSN: 2561-326X
Figure 1Final image transformations included random vertical and horizontal flipping and random brightness and contrast adjustment.
Research participant characteristics (N=103).
| Characteristics | Values |
| Age (years), mean (SE) | 75.0 (11.8) |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean (SE) | 28.3 (6.1) |
| Participant with type 1 diabetes, n | 8 |
| Number of years on insulin, mean (SE) | 9.4 (11.5) |
| Duration of diabetes (years), mean (SE) | 20.7 (6.1) |
| Glycated hemoglobin (%), mean (SE) | 8.0 (1.1) |
| Total daily dose (units), mean (SE) | 48.6 (42.9) |
| Daily doses, n (range) | 2 (1-6) |
Figure 2Some examples of images found in our data set. The top row displays negative images (no lipohypertrophy present) and the bottom row displays positive images (lipohypertrophy present) where the yellow annotations indicate the exact area of the mass. The yellow annotations are only for the reader; the images that the model was trained on were unmarked with no yellow annotations.
Model accuracy scores, recall or sensitivity scores, and specificity scores.
| Model | Accuracy scores | Recall or sensitivity scores | Specificity scores |
| DenseNet | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.49 |
| Inception | 0.74 | 0.52 | 0.33 |
| VGG16 | 0.65 | 0.19 | 0.12 |
| ResNet | 0.61 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 3Our final object detection model results on a test sample reveals promising outcomes. The top row indicates the true location of lipohypertrophy, and the bottom row indicates where the model thinks the lipohypertrophy is. The number on the red box indicates the model’s confidence.
Figure 4Our results from the YOLOv5m object detection model showcase a successful initial attempt, as shown by our precision (a). Our best F1 score (b) is around 0.78 with a confidence value of about 0.4109. Any higher confidence value causes our recall (c) to suffer dramatically, which was the focus of our optimization.