Literature DB >> 35721007

Application of deep learning algorithm in automated identification of knee arthroplasty implants from plain radiographs using transfer learning models: Are algorithms better than humans?

Anjali Tiwari1, Amit Kumar Yadav2, Vaibhav Bagaria3.   

Abstract

Aim: In preoperative planning of a revision knee arthroplasty, it can be challenging to identify an implant manufacturer type from a primary knee arthroplasty due to the inability to identify the implants in time. It has been shown that deep learning improves diagnosis with each iteration in the medical field. The problem of identifying the manufacturer and model of knee arthroplasty prostheses has been solved using automated deep learning models. In our study, we have developed deep learning algorithm to identify knee arthroplasty, implant manufacturer type. The current study also aimed to determine the best of the seven machine learning-based model for detecting knee implants according to different manufacturing types from plain radiographs based on their efficacy and accuracy. Material and methods: Plain radiographs of 521 knee arthroplasty implants of six different manufacturers were taken from the anteroposterior and lateral perspectives to train, validate, and test the implants. Among 521 radiographs images, 70% were used in the initial training process, 10% in testing the models, and 20% in determining the accuracy and validity of the models. The study explored the transfer learning technique to develop models. The advantage of transfer learning for knee implant detection is that if existing models are already trained on a large enough and general dataset, these models can be used to fulfil the study's objectives. In addition, to establish the efficacy of these knee implants, two orthopaedic consultants specialised in arthroplasty independently identified these manufacturers types.
Results: The performance and network of the model resulted in high accuracy for identifying knee implant types out of seven models, five of which had more than 90% accuracy. After 20 training epochs on all seven models, based on the validation dataset, VGG-16 produces the best results with an accuracy of 95.5% and a precision of 98.4%. However, the study asserted that machine learning outperformed two human expert, who achieved an average accuracy of 78%.
Conclusion: This study may lead to the development of an automated implant identification tool that could improve the accuracy and speed of decision made by healthcare professionals.
© 2022 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Implant; Knee arthroplasty; Machine learning; Plain radiographs; Transfer learning

Year:  2022        PMID: 35721007      PMCID: PMC9200892          DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.05.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop        ISSN: 0972-978X


  18 in total

1.  Implant-specific patient identification cards.

Authors:  Edward W Lambert
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Training neural network classifiers for medical decision making: the effects of imbalanced datasets on classification performance.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Piotr A Habas; Jacek M Zurada; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker; Georgia D Tourassi
Journal:  Neural Netw       Date:  2007-12-27

3.  Revision total hip and knee arthroplasty implant identification: implications for use of Unique Device Identification 2012 AAHKS member survey results.

Authors:  Natalia A Wilson; Megan Jehn; Sally York; Charles M Davis
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Current Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Ronald E Delanois; Jaydev B Mistry; Chukwuweike U Gwam; Nequesha S Mohamed; Ujval S Choksi; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Detecting total hip replacement prosthesis design on plain radiographs using deep convolutional neural network.

Authors:  Alireza Borjali; Antonia F Chen; Orhun K Muratoglu; Mohammad A Morid; Kartik M Varadarajan
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks.

Authors:  Andre Esteva; Brett Kuprel; Roberto A Novoa; Justin Ko; Susan M Swetter; Helen M Blau; Sebastian Thrun
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Machine learning-based identification of hip arthroplasty designs.

Authors:  Yang-Jae Kang; Jun-Il Yoo; Yong-Han Cha; Chan H Park; Jung-Taek Kim
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Cardiac Rhythm Device Identification Using Neural Networks.

Authors:  James P Howard; Louis Fisher; Matthew J Shun-Shin; Daniel Keene; Ahran D Arnold; Yousif Ahmad; Christopher M Cook; James C Moon; Charlotte H Manisty; Zach I Whinnett; Graham D Cole; Daniel Rueckert; Darrel P Francis
Journal:  JACC Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-03-27

9.  Deep Learning to Improve Breast Cancer Detection on Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Li Shen; Laurie R Margolies; Joseph H Rothstein; Eugene Fluder; Russell McBride; Weiva Sieh
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease.

Authors:  Jeffrey De Fauw; Joseph R Ledsam; Bernardino Romera-Paredes; Stanislav Nikolov; Nenad Tomasev; Sam Blackwell; Harry Askham; Xavier Glorot; Brendan O'Donoghue; Daniel Visentin; George van den Driessche; Balaji Lakshminarayanan; Clemens Meyer; Faith Mackinder; Simon Bouton; Kareem Ayoub; Reena Chopra; Dominic King; Alan Karthikesalingam; Cían O Hughes; Rosalind Raine; Julian Hughes; Dawn A Sim; Catherine Egan; Adnan Tufail; Hugh Montgomery; Demis Hassabis; Geraint Rees; Trevor Back; Peng T Khaw; Mustafa Suleyman; Julien Cornebise; Pearse A Keane; Olaf Ronneberger
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 53.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.