| Literature DB >> 35991581 |
Zheming Li1,2,3,4, Chunze Song3,5, Jian Huang1,2,3, Jing Li1,2,3, Shoujiang Huang3,6, Baoxin Qian7, Xing Chen8, Shasha Hu9, Ting Shu10, Gang Yu1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Diagnosing pediatric intussusception from ultrasound images can be a difficult task in many primary care hospitals that lack experienced radiologists. To address this challenge, this study developed an artificial intelligence- (AI-) based system for automatic detection of "concentric circles" signs on ultrasound images, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of pediatric intussusception diagnosis.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35991581 PMCID: PMC9391185 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9285238
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 1.919
Figure 1Signs of “concentric circles” at different angles. A child diagnosed with intussusception (female, 2 years old) presents with abdominal pain, vomiting, hematochezia, and abdominal mass. The “concentric circle” area is marked with a white cross: (a) easy to observe and (b) hard to observe.
Figure 2Overall flow chart.
Figure 3Network structure. The main structure of the network consists of three stages: backbone for feature extraction network, region proposal network (RPN), and region of interest (ROI) pooling. Input the image into the VGG16 to get the feature map, use RPN to generate the anchors, after Nonmaximum Suppression (NMS) to obtain ROIs, project the ROIs onto the feature map to get the feature matrix, scale each feature matrix to 7 × 7 through the ROI pooling, and then flatten the feature map to get the prediction result through a series of fully connected layers.
Figure 4Training details. (a) Loss curves of training sets under different iterations and (b) variation curves of different evaluation index values of training sets under different epochs.
Figure 5Flow chart of data collection.
Patient baseline data.
| Intussusception | Normal |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| All ( | |||
| Patient, | 373 | 67 | |
| Age (months), mean [SD] | 28.6 [21.5] | 39.1 [36.6] | 0.001 |
| Sex, male, | 266 (71.3) | 40 (59.7) | <0.001 |
Division of detection data.
| Detection data | Total case | Total images | Positive images | Negative images | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train set | Intussusception | 298 | 2325 | 575 | 1750 |
| Validation set | Intussusception | 75 | 586 | 140 | 446 |
| Total number | 373 | 2911 | 715 | 2196 | |
Division of classification data.
| Intussusception | Normal | Total case | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification data | 75 | 67 | 142 |
Comparison of evaluation index results under different confidence thresholds.
| Threshold | TP | TN | FP | FN | Acc | Spe | Recall | Precision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.05 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.10 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.15 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.20 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.25 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.30 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.35 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.40 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.45 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.50 | 133 | 411 | 35 | 7 | 92.8% | 92.2% | 95.0% | 79.2% |
| 0.55 | 132 | 411 | 35 | 8 | 92.7% | 92.2% | 94.3% | 79.0% |
| 0.60 | 131 | 411 | 35 | 9 | 92.5% | 92.2% | 93.6% | 78.9% |
| 0.65 | 131 | 412 | 34 | 9 | 92.7% | 92.4% | 93.6% | 79.4% |
| 0.70 | 130 | 412 | 34 | 10 | 92.5% | 92.4% | 92.9% | 79.3% |
| 0.75 | 130 | 412 | 34 | 10 | 92.5% | 92.4% | 92.9% | 79.3% |
| 0.80 | 128 | 413 | 33 | 12 | 92.3% | 92.6% | 91.4% | 79.5% |
| 0.85 | 127 | 413 | 33 | 13 | 92.1% | 92.6% | 90.7% | 79.4% |
| 0.90 | 124 | 415 | 31 | 16 | 92.0% | 93.1% | 88.6% | 80.0% |
| 0.95 | 122 | 417 | 29 | 18 | 92.0% | 93.5% | 87.1% | 80.8% |
Figure 6Ultrasound images of pediatric intussusception in the validation set.
Figure 7ROC curve of detection results on the validation set.
Figure 8Classification results on the validation set. (a) Confusion matrix and (b) ROC curve.
Classification performance on the validation set using different evaluation indexes.
| AUC | ACC | Recall | Spe | F1 score | Youden index | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Validation set | 98.6% | 93.0% | 92.0% | 94.1% | 93.2% | 0.813 |