| Literature DB >> 36004884 |
Ning Yue1, Jingwei Zhang2, Jing Zhao3, Qinyan Zhang2, Xinshan Lin3, Jijiang Yang4.
Abstract
Bronchiectasis is defined as a permanent dilation of the bronchi that can cause pulmonary ventilation dysfunction. CT examination is an important means of diagnosing bronchiectasis. It can also be used in severity scoring. Current studies on bronchiectasis have focused on high-resolution CT (HRCT), ignoring the more common low-dose CT (LDCT). Methodologically, existing studies have not adopted an authoritative standard to classify the severity of bronchiectasis. In effect, the accuracy of detection and classification needs to be improved for practical application. In this paper, the ACER image enhancement method, RDU-Net lung lobe segmentation method and HDC Mask R-CNN model were proposed to detect and classify bronchiectasis. Moreover, a Python-based system was developed: after inputing an LDCT image of a patient's lung, it can automatically perform a series of processing, then call on the trained deep learning model for detection and classification, and automatically obtain the patient's bronchiectasis final score according to the Reiff and BRICS scoring criteria. In this paper, the mapping relationship between original lung CT image data and bronchiectasis scoring system was established. The accuracy of the method proposed in this paper was 91.4%; the IOU, sensitivity and specificity were 88.8%, 88.6% and 85.4%, respectively; and the recognition speed of one picture was about 1 s. Compared to a human doctor, the system can process large amounts of data simultaneously, quickly and efficiently, with the same judgment accuracy as a human doctor. Doctors only need to judge the uncertain cases, which significantly reduces the burden of doctors and provides a useful reference for doctors to diagnose the disease.Entities:
Keywords: LDCT; Mask R-CNN; automated scoring; bronchiectasis; decision support system; object detection
Year: 2022 PMID: 36004884 PMCID: PMC9404905 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9080359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Improved REIFF scoring criteria 1.
| Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of bronchiectasis 2 | None | Mild 3 | Moderate 4 | Severe 5 |
1 Six lung lobes (lung 5 lobes + lingual lobes) were scored separately, and the full score was 18 points. 2 The degree of bronchiectasis was scored according to the most dilated part of the lung lobes. 3 Lumen diameter 1–2 times of adjacent vessel diameter. 4 Lumen diameter 2–3 times of adjacent vessel diameter. 5 Lumen diameter more than 3 times of adjacent vessel diameter.
BRICS scoring criteria 1.
| Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of bronchiectasis | None | Mild 2 | Moderate 3 | Severe 4 |
| Range of emphysema | None | 1–5 | >5 |
1 The total score of bronchiectasis degree and emphysema range was 5 points. 2 Lumen diameter 1–2 times of adjacent vessel diameter. 3 Lumen diameter 2–3 times of adjacent vessel diameter. 4 Lumen diameter more than 3 times of adjacent vessel diameter.
Original dataset distribution.
| Mild | Moderate | Severe | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantity | 588 | 566 | 838 | 1992 |
Figure 1Images of bronchiectasis of different labeled class.
Figure 2Original image and enhanced image using ACER.
Figure 3RDU-Net model structure.
Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of segmentation models.
| Models | Edge Segmentation | Deep Web Degradation Problem | Hole After Segmentation | Receptive Field |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U-Net | inaccurate | serious | many | small |
| Ours | accurate | no | no | bigger |
Figure 4Comparison of two methods of lung lobe segmentation. (a) Original image. (b) U-Net lung lobe segmentation. (c) RDU-Net lung lobe segmentation.
Figure 5Segmentation image of lung lobe. From left to right from top to bottom as follows: right-up lobe, left-up lobe, right-down lobe, and left-down lobe.
Figure 6Gridding effect.
Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of detection models.
| Models | Information Loss | Pixel Using | Gridding Effect | Receptive Field |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mask R-CNN | serious | part | yes | small |
| Ours | reduce | all | no | bigger |
Figure 7HDC Mask R-CNN structure.
Figure 8DataEnhance experiment loss change curve.
Comparison of classification accuracy of image enhancement.
| Data Enhancement Method | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Data Set | 70.4% | 71.2% | 75.8% | 72.5% |
| Retinex | 72.2% | 74.8% | 77.6% | 74.8% |
| ACER | 77.9% | 78.5% | 85.3% | 80.6% |
Comparison of detection IOU of image enhancement.
| Data Enhancement Method | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average IOU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Data Set | 61.2% | 63.5% | 66.3% | 63.7% |
| Retinex | 62.4% | 65.8% | 70.1% | 66.1% |
| ACER | 68.4% | 70.1% | 77.3% | 71.9% |
Figure 9IOU schematic diagram.
Figure 10Lung lobe segmentation experiment loss change curve.
IOU comparative experiment of lung segmentation.
| Models | Left Upper | Left Lower | Right Upper | Right Mid | Right Lower | Average IOU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U-Net | 91.2% | 91.2% | 91.6% | 91.5% | 91.6% | 91.4% |
| RDU-Net | 98.2% | 98.1% | 98.4% | 98.3% | 98.2% | 98.3% |
Lung segmentation model comparative experiment of classification accuracy.
| Pretreatment Method | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original Image | 78.0% | 78.5% | 85.3% | 80.6% |
| Lung Lobe Segmentation | 84.5% | 84.6% | 86.3% | 85.1% |
Lung segmentation model comparative experiment of detection IOU.
| Pretreatment Method | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average IOU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original Image | 68.4% | 70.1% | 77.3% | 71.9% |
| Lung Lobe Segmentation | 79.5% | 80.2% | 84.7% | 81.5% |
A comparative experiment on the accuracy of three kinds of HDC structures.
| Model Structure | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-2-5-2-1 | 90.9% | 91.4% | 92.0% | 91.4% |
| 1-3-5-3-1 | 90.5% | 91.1% | 91.3% | 91.0% |
| 2-3-5-3-2 | 89.9% | 90.1% | 90.6% | 90.2% |
Figure 11HDC Mask R-CNN loss change curve.
The sensitivity of Mask R-CNN and HDC Mask R-CNN was compared.
| Methods | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mask R-CNN | 82.2% | 82.4% | 83.8% | 82.8% |
| HDC Mask R-CNN | 88.5% | 88.2% | 89.1% | 88.6% |
The specificity of Mask R-CNN and HDC Mask R-CNN was compared.
| Methods | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mask R-CNN | 78.2% | 79.5% | 82.2% | 80.0% |
| HDC Mask R-CNN | 84.6% | 85.2% | 86.4% | 85.4% |
The classification accuracy of Mask R-CNN and HDC Mask R-CNN was compared.
| Methods | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mask R-CNN | 90.7% | 91.1% | 91.5% | 91.1% |
| HDC Mask R-CNN | 90.9% | 91.4% | 92.0% | 91.4% |
The detection IOU of Mask R-CNN and HDC Mask R-CNN was compared.
| Methods | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average IOU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mask R-CNN | 87.2% | 88.5% | 88.9% | 88.2% |
| HDC Mask R-CNN | 87.8% | 89.2% | 89.4% | 88.8% |
Figure 12HDC Mas R-CNN detection results for three types of bronchiectasis. (a) Class 1 original image. (b) Class 2 original image. (c) Class 3 original image. (d) Class 1 result. (e) Class 2 result. (f) Class 3 result.
Figure 13System flow diagram.