| Literature DB >> 35774780 |
Chuxin Huang1,2, Weidao Chen3, Baiyun Liu3, Ruize Yu3, Xiqian Chen2, Fei Tang1, Jun Liu1,4, Wei Lu2.
Abstract
Background: Differential diagnosis of demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system is a challenging task that is prone to errors and inconsistent reading, requiring expertise and additional examination approaches. Advancements in deep-learning-based image interpretations allow for prompt and automated analyses of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which can be utilized in classifying multi-sequence MRI, and thus may help in subsequent treatment referral.Entities:
Keywords: MRI; deep learning; demyelinating disease; differential diagnosis; multiple sclerosis; myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease; neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder; transformer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35774780 PMCID: PMC9238435 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.897959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Flow chart of the selection process of included participants. AQP4+ NMOSD, aquaporin 4 positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders; MOGAD, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease; MR, magnetic resonance; MS, multiple sclerosis.
Demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with MS, AQP4+ NMOSD, and MOGAD.
| Development Set (n = 231) | Testing Set (n = 59) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS | AQP4+ NMOSD | MOGAD | MS | AQP4+ NMOSD | MOGAD | p value* | |
|
| |||||||
| No. of patients, n | 53 | 129 | 49 | 14 | 33 | 12 | – |
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 33.11 ± 12.83 | 44.21 ± 14.10 | 23.31 ± 18.09 | 34.50 ± 14.03 | 42.12 ± 15.30 | 27.33 ± 15.74 | > 0.05 |
| Adults (≥18 years), n (%) | 50 (94.34%) | 126 (97.67%) | 22 (44.90%) | 14 (100%) | 31 (93.94%) | 7 (58.33%) | – |
| Sex (male/female) | 28/25 | 10/119 | 20/29 | 8/6 | 3/30 | 6/6 | > 0.05 |
| Disease duration, mean ± SD, months | 31.74 ± 50.41 | 26.76 ± 51.80 | 14.15 ± 37.74 | 46.96 ± 48.99 | 38.50 ± 79.02 | 10.33 ± 24.11 | > 0.05 |
| Onset times, mean ± SD | 1.96 ± 0.88 | 1.90 ± 1.34 | 1.47 ± 0.92 | 2.14 ± 0.66 | 1.73 ± 1.21 | 1.17 ± 0.39 | > 0.05 |
| First attack, n (%) | 18 (33.96%) | 66 (51.16%) | 36 (73.47%) | 2 (14.29%) | 20 (60.61%) | 10 (83.33%) | – |
| Second attack, n (%) | 22 (41.51%) | 35 (27.13%) | 6 (12.24%) | 8 (57.14%) | 7 (21.21%) | 2 (16.67%) | – |
| ≥3 attacks, n (%) | 13 (24.53%) | 28 (21.71%) | 7 (14.29%) | 4 (28.57%) | 6 (18.18%) | 0 (0) | – |
| EDSS score at the time of MRI, mean ± SD | 3.53 ± 1.87 | 5.70 ± 2.22 | 2.45 ± 1.28 | 4.14 ± 1.62 | 4.86 ± 1.99 | 2.54 ± 1.66 | > 0.05 |
| Visual disturbance, n (%) | 21 (39.62%) | 48 (37.21%) | 27 (55.10%) | 4 (28.57%) | 9 (27.27%) | 5 (41.67%) | > 0.05 |
|
| |||||||
| No. of MRI sequences | 178 | 411 | 166 | 45 | 112 | 41 | – |
| Brain + spinal cord, n (%) | 39 (73.58%) | 91 (70.54%) | 36 (73.47%) | 10 (71.43%) | 26 (78.79%) | 9 (75.00%) | – |
| Brain only, n (%) | 13 (24.53%) | 6 (4.65%) | 12 (24.49%) | 4 (28.57%) | 1 (3.03%) | 3 (25.00%) | – |
| Cervicothoracic and/or thoracolumbar spinal cord only, n (%) | 1 (1.89%) | 32 (24.81%) | 1 (2.04%) | 0 (0) | 6 (18.18%) | 0 (0) | – |
| MR scanner field strength | |||||||
| 3.0 T scanners | 12 | 50 | 28 | 2 | 13 | 3 | – |
| 1.5 T scanners | 41 | 79 | 21 | 12 | 20 | 9 | – |
*Significant difference (p < 0.05) of each clinical variable in the MS, AQP4+ NMOSD, and MOGAD groups, respectively, between the development and testing datasets.
AQP4+ NMOSD, aquaporin 4 positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders; EDSS, expanded disability status scale; MOGAD, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MS, multiple sclerosis; SD, standard deviation.
Diagnostic performance of our proposed MIL-CoaT transformer model based on different inputs in classification of MS, AQP4+ NMOSD and MOGAD.
| One-vs.-rest classification | ROC_AUC (95% CI) | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| MS vs. others | 0.936 (0.855, 0.990) | 88.9 | 78.6 | 92.5 | 78.6 | 92.5 | 0.786 |
| AQP4+ NMOSD vs. others | 0.940 (0.870, 0.986) | 87.0 | 78.6 | 96.2 | 95.7 | 80.6 | 0.863 |
| MOGAD vs. others | 0.782 (0.606, 0.938) | 85.2 | 58.3 | 92.9 | 70.0 | 88.6 | 0.636 |
|
| |||||||
| MS vs. others | 0.724 (0.539, 0.897) | 74.5 | 70.0 | 75.6 | 41.2 | 91.2 | 0.519 |
| AQP4+ NMOSD vs. others | 0.689 (0.520, 0.833) | 70.6 | 71.9 | 68.4 | 79.3 | 59.1 | 0.780 |
| MOGAD vs. others | 0.714 (0.494, 0.919) | 82.4 | 55.6 | 88.1 | 50.0 | 90.2 | 0.526 |
|
| |||||||
| MS vs. others | 0.933 (0.848, 0.991) | 84.7 | 92.9 | 82.2 | 61.9 | 97.4 | 0.743 |
| AQP4+ NMOSD vs. others | 0.942 (0.879, 0.987) | 88.1 | 87.9 | 88.5 | 90.6 | 85.2 | 0.892 |
| MOGAD vs. others | 0.803 (0.629, 0.949) | 72.9 | 83.3 | 70.2 | 41.7 | 94.3 | 0.556 |
AQP4+ NMOSD, aquaporin 4 positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders; AUC, area under curve; CI, confidence interval; MOGAD, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease; MS, multiple sclerosis; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve.
Figure 2ROC curves of the models based on brain, spinal cord, and combined MRI sequences in the cohorts of patients with MS (A, B), AQP4+ NMOSD (C, D) and MOGAD (E, F). AQP4+ NMOSD, aquaporin 4 positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders; MOGAD, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MS, multiple sclerosis; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 3The confusion matrix of the fusion model in the test dataset of 59 patients (A), the model based on the brain MRI (B), the model based on the spinal cord MRI (C), and human rater 1 and 2 (D, E). AQP4+ NMOSD, aquaporin 4 positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders; MOGAD, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease; MS, multiple sclerosis.
Figure 4Visualization of features extracted by the deep-learning model from the input images. From the left, the first column represents the original MRI slices with manual annotations of lesions in the brain, cervical spinal cord, and thoracic spinal cord. In the second column, a smaller patch is cropped around the lesions. The third column represents the activation heatmaps. The color depth of the heatmaps represents the possibility of predicted lesions by the model. The fourth column overlaps the activation mapping with the original MRI for better visual reference.