| Literature DB >> 36148422 |
Shan Fang1, Jiahui Yang1, Minghui Wang1, Chunhui Liu2, Shuang Liu1.
Abstract
With the rapid development of deep learning, automatic lesion detection is used widely in clinical screening. To solve the problem that existing deep learning-based cervical precancerous lesion detection algorithms cannot meet high classification accuracy and fast running speed at the same time, a ShuffleNet-based cervical precancerous lesion classification method is proposed. By adding channel attention to the ShuffleNet, the network performance is improved. In this study, the image dataset is classified into five categories: normal, cervical cancer, LSIL (CIN1), HSIL (CIN2/CIN3), and cervical neoplasm. The colposcopy images are expanded to solve the problems of the lack of colposcopy images and the uneven distribution of images from each category. For the test dataset, the accuracy of the proposed CNN models is 81.23% and 81.38%. Our classifier achieved an AUC score of 0.99. The experimental results show that the colposcopy image classification network based on artificial intelligence has good performance in classification accuracy and model size, and it has high clinical applicability.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36148422 PMCID: PMC9489397 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9675628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1ShuffleNet structure model.
Figure 2Channel shuffle process.
Figure 3Squeeze-and-Excitation networks structure model.
Figure 4Inverted-residual-SE structure model.
Figure 5Selective Kernel attention structure model.
Figure 6Inverted-residual-SK structure model.
Cervix types in cervigram dataset.
| Type | Label | Number of images |
|---|---|---|
| Normal | 0 | 2352 |
| LSIL | 1 | 780 |
| HSIL | 2 | 2532 |
| Cervical cancer | 3 | 408 |
| Cervical neoplasm | 4 | 924 |
Network comparison experimental data.
| Method | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG-16 | 50.72 ± 2.12 | 45.63 ± 3.25 | 45.67 ± 1.02 | 45.07 ± 1.59 |
| ResNet34 | 83.95 ± 4.02 | 84.88 ± 3.18 | 81.28 ± 4.51 | 82.81 ± 3.44 |
| GoogleNet | 53.72 ± 5.42 | 47.43 ± 4.77 | 51.73 ± 4.82 | 45.09 ± 5.03 |
| DenseNet121 | 86.39 ± 1.45 | 87.00 ± 1.91 | 83.95 ± 2.62 | 85.17 ± 1.98 |
| MobileNet | 54.30 ± 1.57 | 65.12 ± 2.18 | 44.60 ± 1.69 | 43.45 ± 2.03 |
| ShuffleNet | 80.37 ± 2.06 | 79.90 ± 1.89 | 79.42 ± 1.58 | 79.60 ± 1.95 |
| ShuffleNet_SK | 81.23 ± 2.03 | 81.65 ± 1.64 | 79.88 ± 2.25 | 80.67 ± 1.83 |
| ShuffleNet_SE | 81.38 ± 1.95 | 81.76 ± 2.32 | 80.74 ± 1.87 | 81.16 ± 2.26 |
Figure 7Accuracy comparison.
Figure 8Model size comparison.
Figure 9Confusion matrix.