| Literature DB >> 35957222 |
Yiwen Liu1, Tao Wen1,2, Wei Sun3, Zhenyu Liu2, Xiaoying Song2, Xuan He4, Shuo Zhang5, Zhenning Wu5.
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) images play an important role due to effectiveness and accessibility, however, motion artifacts may obscure or simulate pathology and dramatically degrade the diagnosis accuracy. In recent years, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance in medical imaging due to the powerful learning ability with the help of the advanced hardware technology. Unfortunately, CNNs have significant overhead on memory usage and computational resources and are labeled 'black-box' by scholars for their complex underlying structures. To this end, an interpretable graph-based method has been proposed for motion artifacts detection from head CT images in this paper. From a topological perspective, the artifacts detection problem has been reformulated as a complex network classification problem based on the network topological characteristics of the corresponding complex networks. A motion artifacts detection method based on complex networks (MADM-CN) has been proposed. Firstly, the graph of each CT image is constructed based on the theory of complex networks. Secondly, slice-to-slice relationship has been explored by multiple graph construction. In addition, network topological characteristics are investigated locally and globally, consistent topological characteristics including average degree, average clustering coefficient have been utilized for classification. The experimental results have demonstrated that the proposed MADM-CN has achieved better performance over conventional machine learning and deep learning methods on a real CT dataset, reaching up to 98% of the accuracy and 97% of the sensitivity.Entities:
Keywords: classification; complex networks; computed tomography images; motion artifacts detection; network topological characteristics
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35957222 PMCID: PMC9371218 DOI: 10.3390/s22155666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Illustration of original slices. (A–E) represent slices with motion artifacts. (F–J) represent slices without motion artifacts.
Head CT Slices of different qualities in different regions.
| Slice ID | Region Label | Quality Label |
|---|---|---|
| a | 1 | 0 |
| b | 2 | 1 |
| c | 1 | 0 |
| d | 3 | 1 |
| e | 2 | 1 |
| f | 1 | 0 |
Figure 2A schematic description of slice-level networks based on region and label consistency. Edges which are described by the straight lines are generated when the slices belonging to the same region label share the same quality label. Otherwise, the two slices are considered to be independent to each other.
The Notations of basic network topological properties.
| Notation | Implication |
|---|---|
| V | The set of vertices |
| E | The set of edges |
| Average Degree | The sum from the graph’s number of edges divided by its number of vertices. |
| Average Clustering Coefficient | The degree of clustering of constructed network |
Figure 3Pipeline of Motion Artifacts Detection Method based on topological properties.
Figure 4Corresponding graphs generated based on pixel-level graph construction. (A–E) represent head CT images with motion artifacts. (F–J) represent head CT images without artifacts.
Figure 5Different network topological properties from a part of data sets, (A) depicts the average clustering coefficient, (B) depicts average degree, respectively. It is worth noting that both the average clustering coefficient and the average degree of the CT images with artifacts are larger than those of the CT images without artifacts, respectively.
Figure 6The constructed graphs using slice-level graph construction method. (A) is the hybrid graph which consists of head CT slices with motion artifacts and head CT slices without artifacts, (B) contains head CT slices without artifacts alone, (C) contains head CT slices with artifacts alone.
The network topological properties of slice-level graph.
| Dataset | N | Average Clustering Coefficient | Average | Average | |E| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hybrid | 600 | 0.994 | 1.127 | 12.039 | 2082 |
| CT images without artifacts alone | 300 | 0.988 | 1.357 | 8.817 | 821 |
| CT images with artifacts alone | 300 | 0.998 | 1.006 | 14.186 | 1981 |
Metrics of artifacts detection judgement.
| Predicted | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | ||
| True | 1 | True Positive ( | False Negative ( |
| False | 0 | False Positive ( | True Negative ( |
Performance compared with the state-of-the-art methods.
| Classification | Features | Level | Sensitivity | Accuracy | Specificity | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MADM-CN + SVM | Physical + Topological | hybrid | 97% | 98% | 96% | 0.9668 |
| MADM-CN + RF | Physical + Topological | hybrid | 95% | 97% | 98% | 0.9591 |
| CNN | Physical | Pixel | 86.67% | 76.67% | 66.67% | 0.722 |
| RF | Physical | Pixel | 85% | 88% | 89% | 0.9366 |
| SVM | Physical | Pixel | 80% | 88% | 93% | 0.8819 |