| Literature DB >> 35756613 |
Chong Wang1,2,3, Xiu-Li Wei2,4, Chen-Xi Li2,4, Yang-Zhen Wang3,5, Yang Wu2,6, Yan-Xiang Niu2,6, Chen Zhang3,7, Yi Yu2,6.
Abstract
Hematopoietic disorders are serious diseases that threaten human health, and the diagnosis of these diseases is essential for treatment. However, traditional diagnosis methods rely on manual operation, which is time consuming and laborious, and examining entire slide is challenging. In this study, we developed a weakly supervised deep learning method for diagnosing malignant hematological diseases requiring only slide-level labels. The method improves efficiency by converting whole-slide image (WSI) patches into low-dimensional feature representations. Then the patch-level features of each WSI are aggregated into slide-level representations by an attention-based network. The model provides final diagnostic predictions based on these slide-level representations. By applying the proposed model to our collection of bone marrow WSIs at different magnifications, we found that an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.966 on an independent test set can be obtained at 10× magnification. Moreover, the performance on microscopy images can achieve an average accuracy of 94.2% on two publicly available datasets. In conclusion, we have developed a novel method that can achieve fast and accurate diagnosis in different scenarios of hematological disorders.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; digital pathology; hematological malignancies; hematopathology; weakly supervised
Year: 2022 PMID: 35756613 PMCID: PMC9226668 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.879308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Dataset description.
| AML | CML | ALL | CLL | MM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-house dataset | 45 | 16 | 25 | 23 | 20 |
| External dataset | 10 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 4 |
| Total | 55 | 20 | 31 | 29 | 24 |
Figure 1Overview of the model architecture. Bone marrow WSIs were divided into image patches, and then the patches were encoded by a pretrained ResNet50-based CNN fixed into a low-dimensional feature vectors in the training and inference. Multi-class attention branches assign an attention score to each patch in the WSI based on its importance to the slide-level diagnosis and weigh the importance of the patches by the attention score to aggregate the patch features into a slide level representation. Based on these slide-level representations, the model marked the final diagnostic predictions. Fc1, Fc2, fully connected layers; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ALL, acute lymphoid leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphoid leukemia; MM, multiple myeloma.
Figure 2Different magnification performance and comparative analysis. (A) 5-fold mean test macro-averaged AUC ± s.d. of our model using 10×, 40×, and 100× objectives. The confidence band shows ±1 s.d. for the ROC. (B) Cross-validation test AUCs. (C) Cross-validation test balanced error. (D) Average confidence (± 1 s.d.) of correctly and incorrectly classified WSIs of the model. (E) Slide-level feature space for a single cross-validated fold using PCA in the validation and test sets. PC, principal component.
Figure 3Independent test set performance. (A) 5-fold mean test macro-averaged AUC ± s.d. of our model using 10×, 40×, and 100× objectives on the independent test set. The confidence band shows ±1 s.d. for the ROC. (B) Cross-validation test AUCs. (C) Cross-validation test balanced error. (D) Average confidence ( ± 1 s.d.) of correctly and incorrectly classified WSIs of the model. (E) Slide-level feature space for a single cross-validated fold using PCA in the validation and test sets.
Figure 4Interpretability and visualization at 10× magnification. Raw WSIs of representative slides of different kinds of malignant blood tumors (left), the generated attention heatmap (middle). The region of strongest attention (red border) usually focuses on the region of interest (ROI) with distributed blast cell tracks, whereas the region of low attention (blue border) includes images with dense cell distribution, no cells, and other kinds of cells (right).
Figure 5Performance on microscopy images. (A) Mean accuracy on the public dataset (SN-ALL, SN-MM, and ALL-IDB1) test on 40× magnifications with a single cross-validated fold. (B) Confidence ( ± 1 s.d.) of the prediction made by the model. (C) Slide-level feature space for a single cross-validated fold using PCA in the validation and test sets.
Performance on ALL-IDB, SN-AM for different backbone studies.
| Dataset | Study (Reference) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| ALL-IDB | Ahmed et al. ( | 88.25 |
| Palczynski et al. ( | 94.80 | |
| Our method | 95.92 | |
| SN-AM | Duggal et al. ( | 93.20 |
| Kumar et al. ( | 97.25 | |
| Our method | 93.67 |
Figure 6Comparison with the state-of-the-art methods. 5-fold mean test macro-averaged AUC ± s.d. of our model compared with CLAM and MIL.