| Literature DB >> 35942441 |
Jia Wu1,2,3,4, Zikang Liu1, Fangfang Gou1, Jun Zhu3,4, Haoyu Tang3,4, Xian Zhou5, Wangping Xiong5.
Abstract
Osteosarcoma is one of the most common bone tumors that occurs in adolescents. Doctors often use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) through biosensors to diagnose and predict osteosarcoma. However, a number of osteosarcoma MRI images have the problem of the tumor shape boundary being vague, complex, or irregular, which causes doctors to encounter difficulties in diagnosis and also makes some deep learning methods lose segmentation details as well as fail to locate the region of the osteosarcoma. In this article, we propose a novel boundary-aware grid contextual attention net (BA-GCA Net) to solve the problem of insufficient accuracy in osteosarcoma MRI image segmentation. First, a novel grid contextual attention (GCA) is designed to better capture the texture details of the tumor area. Then the statistical texture learning block (STLB) and the spatial transformer block (STB) are integrated into the network to improve its ability to extract statistical texture features and locate tumor areas. Over 80,000 MRI images of osteosarcoma from the Second Xiangya Hospital are adopted as a dataset for training, testing, and ablation studies. Results show that our proposed method achieves higher segmentation accuracy than existing methods with only a slight increase in the number of parameters and computational complexity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35942441 PMCID: PMC9356797 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3881833
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The overall structure of BA-GCA Net.
Figure 2The structure of grid contextual attention (GCA).
Figure 3The structure of 1d-QCO.
Figure 4The structure of the texture enhancement module.
Figure 5The structure of pyramid texture feature extraction module.
Figure 6The structure of spatial transformer block (STB).
Patient statistics.
| Characteristics | Total | Training set | Test set |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| <15 | 48 (23.5%) | 38 (23.2%) | 10 (25.0%) |
| 15–25 | 131 (64.2%) | 107 (65.2%) | 24 (60.0%) |
| >25 | 25 (12.3%) | 19 (11.6%) | 6 (15.0%) |
|
| |||
| Sex | |||
| Female | 92 (45.1%) | 69 (42.1%) | 23 (57.5%) |
| Male | 112 (54.9%) | 95 (57.9%) | 17 (42.5%) |
|
| |||
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 32 (15.7%) | 19 (11.6%) | 13 (32.5%) |
| Unmarried | 172 (84.3%) | 145 (88.4%) | 27 (67.5%) |
|
| |||
| SES | |||
| Low SES | 78 (38.2%) | 66 (40.2%) | 12 (30.0%) |
| High SES | 126 (61.8%) | 98 (59.8%) | 28 (70.0%) |
|
| |||
| Surgery | |||
| Yes | 181 (88.8%) | 146 (89.0%) | 35 (87.5%) |
| No | 23 (11.2%) | 18 (11.0%) | 5 (12.5%) |
|
| |||
| Grade | |||
| Low grade | 41 (20.1%) | 15 (9.1%) | 26 (65.0%) |
| High grade | 163 (79.9%) | 149 (90.9%) | 14 (35.0%) |
|
| |||
| Location | |||
| Axial | 29 (14.2%) | 21 (12.8%) | 8 (20.0%) |
| Extremity | 138 (67.7%) | 109 (66.5%) | 29 (72.5%) |
| Other | 37 (18.1%) | 34 (20.7%) | 3 (7.5%) |
Hyperparameters of the model.
| stage | Hyperparameter | Value |
|---|---|---|
| GCA block | Strategy | Residual |
|
| ||
| ST block | Weight | Zero |
| Bias | [1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0] | |
| Interpolation method | Bilinear | |
|
| ||
| STL block | num_levels | 128 |
|
| ||
| Loss function |
| Based on ratios in batch |
|
| 0.2 | |
|
| 1.25 | |
|
| ||
| Training | Initializer | kaiming_uniform |
| Epochs | 200 | |
| Base learning rate | 0.0001 | |
| Optimizer | Adam | |
| Learning rate decay | (1 − (epoch/total_epochs))0.9 | |
| Up-sampling | Bilinear | |
Figure 7The segmentation effects of models on some osteosarcoma MRI images.
Performance of models.
| Model | Pre | Rec | F1 | DSC | IOU | #params | FLOPs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCN-16s [ | 0.922 | 0.882 | 0.900 | 0.859 | 0.824 | 134.3 M | 190.35 G |
| FCN-8s [ | 0.892 | 0.914 | 0.902 | 0.875 | 0.831 | 134.3 M | 190.08 G |
| MSFCN [ | 0.881 | 0.936 | 0.906 | 0.874 | 0.841 | 23.38 M | 1524.34 G |
| MSRN [ | 0.893 | 0.945 | 0.918 | 0.887 | 0.853 | 14.27 M | 1461.23 G |
| FPN [ | 0.914 | 0.924 | 0.919 | 0.888 | 0.852 | 48.20 M | 141.45 G |
| U-Net [ | 0.922 | 0.924 | 0.923 | 0.892 | 0.867 | 17.26 M | 160.16 G |
| OCR [ | 0.897 | 0.908 | 0.901 | 0.891 | 0.827 | 27.35 M | 125.67 G |
| DeepLabV3 [ | 0.926 | 0.925 | 0.925 | 0.909 | 0.870 | 39.63 M | 170.45 G |
| UNet++ [ | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.908 | 0.868 | 18.16 M | 165.23 G |
| SVM [ | 0.756 | 0.764 | 0.760 | 0.734 | 0.702 | — | — |
| DRN [ | 0.916 | 0.922 | 0.917 | 0.909 | 0.843 | 17.66 M | 76.93 G |
| DRN + CA [ | 0.918 | 0.923 | 0.919 | 0.910 | 0.851 | 18.06 M | 77.21 G |
| Ours (DRN + GCA) | 0.927 | 0.924 | 0.925 | 0.913 | 0.866 | 18.11 M | 77.34 G |
| Ours (DRN + GCA + STLB) | 0.925 | 0.934 | 0.929 | 0.916 | 0.873 | 18.47 M | 82.67 G |
| Ours (DRN + GCA + STLB + STB) | 0.938 | 0.937 | 0.937 | 0.927 | 0.880 | 19.88 M | 149.70 G |
Figure 8Comparison of #params and DSC between models.
Figure 9Comparison of FLOPs and DSC between models.
Figure 10Visualization results of GCA and CA.
Performance of backbone with GCA and CA.
| Model | param add (M) | #params (M) | DSC | IOU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRN-D-22 | — | 17.66 | 0.909 | 0.843 |
| +CA | +0.4 | 18.06 | 0.910 (+0.001) | 0.851 (+0.008) |
| +GCA | +0.45 | 18.11 | 0.913 (+0.004) | 0.866 (+0.023) |
Figure 11Visualization of feature maps before and after TEM.
Comparison of performance before and after using STLB.
| Model | Param Add (M) | #params (M) | DSC | IOU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRN-D-22 | — | 17.66 | 0.909 | 0.843 |
| +STLB | +0.35 | 18.01 | 0.914 (+0.005) | 0.862 (+0.019) |
Figure 12Visualization of prediction boundaries before and after STB.