| Literature DB >> 35743764 |
Shuo Li1, He Wang2, Yiding Xiao1, Mingzi Zhang1, Nanze Yu1, Ang Zeng1, Xiaojun Wang1.
Abstract
A keloid results from abnormal wound healing, which has different blood perfusion and growth states among patients. Active monitoring and treatment of actively growing keloids at the initial stage can effectively inhibit keloid enlargement and has important medical and aesthetic implications. LSCI (laser speckle contrast imaging) has been developed to obtain the blood perfusion of the keloid and shows a high relationship with the severity and prognosis. However, the LSCI-based method requires manual annotation and evaluation of the keloid, which is time consuming. Although many studies have designed deep-learning networks for the detection and classification of skin lesions, there are still challenges to the assessment of keloid growth status, especially based on small samples. This retrospective study included 150 untreated keloid patients, intensity images, and blood perfusion images obtained from LSCI. A newly proposed workflow based on cascaded vision transformer architecture was proposed, reaching a dice coefficient value of 0.895 for keloid segmentation by 2% improvement, an error of 8.6 ± 5.4 perfusion units, and a relative error of 7.8% ± 6.6% for blood calculation, and an accuracy of 0.927 for growth state prediction by 1.4% improvement than baseline.Entities:
Keywords: computer-aided workflow; deep learning; keloid; laser speckle contrast imaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35743764 PMCID: PMC9224605 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12060981
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1Proposed workflow for AI-assisted keloid segmentation and evaluation. We proposed a workflow with a cascaded vision transformer architecture for evaluating keloid states based on LSCI (laser speckle contrast imaging), which contained three modules: an automatic segmentation module, a blood-perfusion analysis module, and an evaluation module. The automatic segmentation module was used to segment and located the keloid, the blood-perfusion analysis module was used to crop the blood-perfusion image to the keloid area, and the evaluation module was used to evaluate the keloid growth states (regressive, stable, and progressive).
Demographic characteristics.
| Location | N | Male | Female | Age | Duration | Perfusion | Regressive | Stable | Progressive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Back | 34 | 18 | 16 | 33.6 ± 11.4 | 7.6 ± 3.9 | 127.6 ± 43.7 | 10 | 9 | 15 |
| Chest | 63 | 29 | 34 | 29.5 ± 12.3 | 6.8 ± 4.1 | 135.8 ± 35.6 | 14 | 16 | 33 |
| Ear | 8 | 4 | 4 | 26.9 ± 10.3 | 6.1 ± 5.0 | 157.8 ± 41.7 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Face | 6 | 4 | 2 | 27.8 ± 3.7 | 9.7 ± 4.1 | 182.8 ± 23.0 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| Hip | 9 | 5 | 4 | 34.2 ± 8.8 | 6.0 ± 3.3 | 103.0 ± 40.2 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
| Limb | 18 | 8 | 10 | 30.3 ± 10.4 | 6.7 ± 4.0 | 105.2 ± 38.4 | 12 | 3 | 3 |
| Abdomen | 12 | 7 | 5 | 29.3 ± 8.2 | 8.0 ± 4.2 | 118.5 ± 32.7 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| All | 150 | 75 | 75 | 30.6 ± 11.1 | 7.1 ± 3.9 | 129.9 ± 41.0 | 49 | 37 | 64 |
Figure 2Segmentation and cropping results of proposed modules. We showed three examples in this figure. The first column, original intensity images; the second column, manual annotations; the third column, automatic segmentations; the fourth column, original blood-perfusion images; the final column, the cropped blood-perfusion images. The first row showed the keloid in the progressive stage; the middle row showed the keloid in the stable stage; the last row showed the keloid in the regressive stage.
Ablation study.
| Segmentation | Prediction | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Pretrain | DICE | Method | Pretrain | Accuracy |
| Resnet50-upernet | None | 0.651 | Resnet50 | None | 0.893 |
| HRnet-c1 | None | 0.671 | Resnet101 | None | 0.893 |
| Resnet50-upernet | ImageNet | 0.861 | Resnet50 | ImageNet | 0.907 |
| HRnet-c1 | ImageNet | 0.875 | Resnet101 | ImageNet | 0.913 |
| VIT-base-upernet | None | 0.562 | cascade-VIT | None | 0.887 |
| VIT-base-upernet | ImageNet | 0.870 (−0.005) | cascade-VIT | ImageNet | 0.913 (+0) |
| VIT-base-upernet | MAE | +patch selection | ImageNet | ||
Note: the bold texts show the best result for each task.
Results of the evaluation module.
| Regressive | Stable | Progressive | All | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.936 | 0.892 | 0.939 | |
| Specificity | 0.961 | 0.965 | 0.964 | |
| Youden | 0.897 | 0.856 | 0.904 | |
| Accuracy | 0.953 | 0.947 | 0.953 | 0.927 |