| Literature DB >> 35425784 |
Chaoran Yang1,2, Shanshan Liao3, Zeyu Yang4, Jiaqi Guo1, Zhichao Zhang1, Yingjian Yang1,2, Yingwei Guo1,2, Shaowei Yin3, Caixia Liu3, Yan Kang1,2,5.
Abstract
Fetal head circumference (HC) is an important biological parameter to monitor the healthy development of the fetus. Since there are some HC measurement errors that affected by the skill and experience of the sonographers, a rapid, accurate and automatic measurement for fetal HC in prenatal ultrasound is of great significance. We proposed a new one-stage network for rotating elliptic object detection based on anchor-free method, which is also an end-to-end network for fetal HC auto-measurement that no need for any post-processing. The network structure used simple transformer structure combined with convolutional neural network (CNN) for a lightweight design, meanwhile, made full use of powerful global feature extraction ability of transformer and local feature extraction ability of CNN to extract continuous and complete skull edge information. The two complement each other for promoting detection precision of fetal HC without significantly increasing the amount of computation. In order to reduce the large variation of intersection over union (IOU) in rotating elliptic object detection caused by slight angle deviation, we used soft stage-wise regression (SSR) strategy for angle regression and added KLD that is approximate to IOU loss into total loss function. The proposed method achieved good results on the HC18 dataset to prove its effectiveness. This study is expected to help less experienced sonographers, provide help for precision medicine, and relieve the shortage of sonographers for prenatal ultrasound in worldwide.Entities:
Keywords: convolutional neural network; fetal head circumference; prenatal ultrasound; rotating object detection; transformers
Year: 2022 PMID: 35425784 PMCID: PMC9002127 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.848904
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1The process comparison between our method and general detection method.
Figure 2The architecture of proposed network.
Figure 3The architecture of MHSA module.
Figure 4The process of mapping GT of keypoints to a 2D Gaussian distribution on the heatmap. The left shows the mapping method of reference (28), the right shows the mapping method of ours.
Figure 5The schematic diagram of SSR strategy for angle regression.
Figure 6The schematic diagram of converting GT of the ellipse (c, c, a, b, θ) into a 2-D Gaussian N(μ, ε).
The comparison results between our method and other common methods base on segmentation algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U-Net ( | 2.36 ± 5.60 | 0.41 ± 2.91 | 31.042 | - |
| U-Net++ ( | 2.29 ± 2.33 | 0.27 ± 2.73 | 9.163 | - |
| CE-Net ( | 2.24 ± 2.28 | 0.16 ± 2.12 | 29.003 | - |
| SE-Unet ( | 2.27 ± 3.61 | 0.09 ± 2.33 |
| - |
| HC18 challenge best |
| - | ||
| Ours | 1.97 ± 1.89 | 0.11 ± 2.71 |
|
|
MAE, Mean Absolute Error; ME, Mean Error; std, standard deviation. Param, the size of model parameters; M, Mbyte; AP, Average precision. Bold values represent the best value of each indicator.
Figure 7Some examples of detection results using the proposed method.
Ablation experiments results.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Res_DCN-50 | Smooth L1 (center, a, b, angle) | 81.83/77.33 |
| Smooth L1 (center, a, b) + SSR (angle) | 83.25/79.97 | |
| Smooth L1 (center, a, b) + SSR (angle) + KLD |
Comparison of Res_DCN-50 with or without MHSA module, SSR, and KLD loss. Bold values represent the best value of each indicator.
Figure 8A Bland-Altman diagram on validation set.