| Literature DB >> 35645776 |
Jialin Hong1, Yueqi Huang2, Jianming Ye3, Jianqing Wang1, Xiaomei Xu1, Yan Wu1, Yi Li1, Jialu Zhao1, Ruipeng Li4, Junlong Kang5, Xiaobo Lai1,6.
Abstract
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent psychiatric disorder, seriously affecting people's quality of life. Manually identifying MDD from structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) images is laborious and time-consuming due to the lack of clear physiological indicators. With the development of deep learning, many automated identification methods have been developed, but most of them stay in 2D images, resulting in poor performance. In addition, the heterogeneity of MDD also results in slightly different changes reflected in patients' brain imaging, which constitutes a barrier to the study of MDD identification based on brain sMRI images. We propose an automated MDD identification framework in sMRI data (3D FRN-ResNet) to comprehensively address these challenges, which uses 3D-ResNet to extract features and reconstruct them based on feature maps. Notably, the 3D FRN-ResNet fully exploits the interlayer structure information in 3D sMRI data and preserves most of the spatial details as well as the location information when converting the extracted features into vectors. Furthermore, our model solves the feature map reconstruction problem in closed form to produce a straightforward and efficient classifier and dramatically improves model performance. We evaluate our framework on a private brain sMRI dataset of MDD patients. Experimental results show that the proposed model exhibits promising performance and outperforms the typical other methods, achieving the accuracy, recall, precision, and F1 values of 0.86776, 0.84237, 0.85333, and 0.84781, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: automated identification; deep learning; feature graph reconstruction network; major depressive disorder; structural magnetic resonance imaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35645776 PMCID: PMC9136074 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.912283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.702
FIGURE 1The overall diagram of our proposed 3D FRN-ResNet framework.
FIGURE 2Results of removing non-brain tissue.
FIGURE 3Results of gray matter segmentation.
FIGURE 4Results of spatial standardization.
FIGURE 5Results of spatial smoothing.
FIGURE 6Proposed 3D-ResNet structure.
FIGURE 7Visualization of extracted features.
FIGURE 8Feature map reconstruction networks network structure diagram.
FIGURE 9Structural magnetic resonance imaging slice images from the MDD and HC in SHH dataset. Left to right: axial view, sagittal view, coronal view, and 3D presentation.
Test results on the training and validation sets.
| Accuracy | Recall | Precision | ||
| Training | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
| Validation | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
FIGURE 10Combination of scatter plot and box plot of training set.
FIGURE 11Combination of scatter plot and box plot of validation set.
Results comparison with different network structures.
| Model | Backbone | Accuracy | Recall | Precision | |
| FRN(ours) | 3D-ResNet |
|
| 0.86 |
|
| ResNet | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.79 | |
| 3D-DenseNet | 0.84 | 0.82 |
| 0.84 | |
| DenseNet | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.78 | |
| SimpleCNN | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.60 | |
| Full connected | 3D-ResNet | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
Bold values mean the best performance.
FIGURE 12ROC curves with FRN-Net for different backbones of the training set.
FIGURE 13ROC curves with FRN-Net for different backbones of the validation set.
Results comparison with different classifiers.
| Model | Accuracy | Recall | Precision | ||
| Train | ProtoNet | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.82 |
| DSN | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.81 | |
| CTX | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.80 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Validation | ProtoNet | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| DSN | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.75 | 0.74 | |
| CTX | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.75 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIGURE 14Performance comparison with various models.
Results comparison with typical methods.
| Method | Accuracy | Recall | Precision | |
|
| 0.82 | 0.79 |
| 0.81 |
|
| 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.80 |
|
| 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.79 |
|
| 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
|
| 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.79 |
|
|
|
| 0.82 |
|
Bold values mean the best performance.