| Literature DB >> 36046444 |
R John Martin1, Uttam Sharma2, Kiranjeet Kaur3, Noor Mohammed Kadhim4, Madonna Lamin5, Collins Sam Ayipeh6.
Abstract
Weighted MR images of 421 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were obtained at the head and neck level, and the tumors in the images were assessed by two expert doctors. 346 patients' multimodal pictures and labels served as training sets, whereas the remaining 75 patients' multimodal images and labels served as independent test sets. Convolutional neural network (CNN) for modal multidimensional information fusion and multimodal multidimensional information fusion (MMMDF) was used. The three models' performance is compared, and the findings reveal that the multimodal multidimensional fusion model performs best, while the two-modal multidimensional information fusion model performs second. The single-modal multidimensional information fusion model has the poorest performance. In MR images of nasopharyngeal cancer, a convolutional network can precisely and efficiently segment tumors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36046444 PMCID: PMC9420592 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5061112
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Convolution neural network structure with multimodal and multidimensional fusion.
2D-ResUNet and 3D-ResUNet network structures.
| Network layer | 2D-ResUNet | 3D-ResUNet | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature map size | Network layer size | Feature map size | Network layer size | |
| Input | 384 × 384 | — | 384 × 384 × 8 | — |
| Residual structure 1 | 384 × 384 | [3 × 3, 16] × 5 | 384 × 384 × 8 | [3 × 3 × 3, 16] × 5 |
| Max pooling layer 1 | 192 × 192 | 2 × 2 max pooling | 192 × 192 × 4 | 2 × 2 × 2 max pooling |
| Residual structure 2 | 192 × 192 | [3 × 3, 32] × 5 | 192 × 192 × 4 | [3 × 3 × 3, 32] × 5 |
| Max pooling layer 2 | 96 × 96 | 2 × 2 max pooling | 96 × 96 × 4 | 2 × 2 × 1 max pooling |
| Residual structure 3 | 96 × 96 | [3 × 3, 64] × 5 | 96 × 96 × 4 | [3 × 3 × 3, 64] × 5 |
| Max pooling layer 3 | 48 × 48 | 2 × 2 max pooling | 48 × 48 × 2 | 2 × 2 × 2 max pooling |
| Residual structure 4 | 48 × 48 | [3 × 3, 128] × 5 | 48 × 48 × 2 | [3 × 3 × 1, 128] × 5 |
| Max pooling layer 4 | 24 × 24 | 2 × 2 max pooling | 24 × 24 × 2 | 2 × 2 × 1 max pooling |
| Residual structure 5 | 24 × 24 | [3 × 3, 256] × 5 | 24 × 24 × 2 | [3 × 3 × 1, 256] × 5 |
| Deconvolution 1 | 48 × 48 | 3 × 3, 2 × 2-[residual structure 4] | 48 × 48 × 2 | 3 × 3 × 1, 2 × 2 × 1-[residual structure 4] |
| Deconvolution 2 | 96 × 96 | 3 × 3, 2 × 2-[residual structure 3] | 96 × 96 × 4 | 3 × 3 × 3, 2 × 2 × 2-[residual structure 3] |
| Deconvolution 3 | 192 × 192 | 3 × 3, 2 × 2-[residual structure 2] | 192 × 192 × 4 | 3 × 3 × 1, 2 × 2 × 1-[residual structure 2] |
| Deconvolution 4 | 384 × 384 | 3 × 3, 2 × 2-[residual structure 1] | 384 × 384 × 8 | 3 × 3 × 3, 2 × 2 × 2-[residual structure 1] |
| Convolutional layer | 384 × 384 | 1 × 1, 2 | 384 × 384 × 8 | 1 × 1 × 1, 2 |
Figure 2Multimodal 2D-ResUNet structures.
Training set and test set information of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) segmentation model.
| Data set | Number of subjects | Number of people (male/female) | Age (mean ± SD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | 346 | 254/92 | 45.5 ± 11.9 |
| Test set | 75 | 55/20 | 44.9 ± 11.6 |
Performance comparison of different NPC segmentation models.
| Nasopharyngeal carcinoma segmentation model | Dice rate | HD (mm) | PAD ratio | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1W-MDF | MDF | 0.77418 | 6.6402 | 20.4 | |
| T2W | MDF | 0.77826 | 6.4974 | 18.258 | |
| T1C | MDF | 0.76194 | 6.5382 | 20.196 | |
| T1W | T2W | MDF | 0.79662 | 5.9568 | 16.83 |
| T1W | T1C | MDF | 0.78846 | 6.1404 | 17.442 |
| T2W | T1C | MDF | 0.7905 | 6.0486 | 17.136 |
| Methods1 [ | 0.74052 | 6.9564 | 24.276 | ||
| Methods2 [ | 0.73236 | 7.0482 | 25.602 | ||
| Methods3 [ | 0.74562 | 6.885 | 23.154 | ||
| MMMDF | 0.8211 | 5.6712 | 15.81 | ||
Figure 3Comparison of performance box plots of seven NPC segmentation models.
Figure 4Comparison of the 2D segmentation results.
Figure 5Comparison of the 3D segmentation results.