| Literature DB >> 36236597 |
Pietro Manganelli Conforti1, Mario D'Acunto2, Paolo Russo1.
Abstract
The grading of cancer tissues is still one of the main challenges for pathologists. The development of enhanced analysis strategies hence becomes crucial to accurately identify and further deal with each individual case. Raman spectroscopy (RS) is a promising tool for the classification of tumor tissues as it allows us to obtain the biochemical maps of the tissues under analysis and to observe their evolution in terms of biomolecules, proteins, lipid structures, DNA, vitamins, and so on. However, its potential could be further improved by providing a classification system which would be able to recognize the sample tumor category by taking as input the raw Raman spectroscopy signal; this could provide more reliable responses in shorter time scales and could reduce or eliminate false-positive or -negative diagnoses. Deep Learning techniques have become ubiquitous in recent years, with models able to perform classification with high accuracy in most diverse fields of research, e.g., natural language processing, computer vision, medical imaging. However, deep models often rely on huge labeled datasets to produce reasonable accuracy, otherwise occurring in overfitting issues when the training data is insufficient. In this paper, we propose a chondrogenic tumor CLAssification through wavelet transform of RAman spectra (CLARA), which is able to classify with high accuracy Raman spectra obtained from bone tissues. CLARA recognizes and grades the tumors in the evaluated dataset with 97% accuracy by exploiting a classification pipeline consisting of the division of the original task in two binary classification steps, where the first is performed on the original RS signals while the latter is accomplished through the use of a hybrid temporal-frequency 2D transform.Entities:
Keywords: CLARA; cancer tissues classification; chondrogenic tumors; deep learning; raman spectroscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236597 PMCID: PMC9571786 DOI: 10.3390/s22197492
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1CLARA pipeline, from the extraction of Raman Spectroscopy from sample tissue to the analysis of 1D and 2D signals, which gives as output the sample tumor category.
Figure 2Representative histological images of samples belonging to E (upper left image), G1 (upper right image), G2 (lower left image) and G3 (lower right image) categories, respectively.
Figure 3Representative 1D RS sample on the left and the corresponding synchrosqueezed CWT on the right.
CLARA final accuracy results, compared with the most common baseline models. The first three rows show the per-class accuracy, while the last row reports the total mean classification accuracy. The 3c and p subscripts refer to the three categories classification and to the pipeline classification, respectively.
| Accuracy | PCA + SVM3c | PCA + SVMp | PCA + LDA3c | PCA + LDAp | LDA3c | LDAp | ANN3c | ANNp | CNN3c | CNNp | CLARA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 100.0% | 60.0% | 87.1% | 67.3% | 35.5% | 26.7% | 100.0% | 96.4% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
|
| 4.2% | 2.5% | 8.3% | 2.8% | 29.2% | 18.6% | 4.2% | 16.0% | 0.0% | 20.8% | 83.3% |
|
| 75.8% | 82.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| ( | 69.0% | 65.7% | 82.6% | 78.3% | 75.5% | 72.5% | 84.5% | 86.1% | 83.8% | 87.6% |
CLARA 1D CNN accuracy compared with most common machine learning methods. The classification task aims at recognizing EG1 tumors from G2G3 ones. The first two rows report the per-class accuracy, with the last row showing the mean accuracy.
| Accuracy | PCA + SVM | PCA + LDA | LDA | ANN | CLARA (CNN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 60.0% | 67.3% | 63.6% | 96.4% | 100% |
|
| 82.8% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
|
| 74.7% | 88.3% | 87.0% | 98.7% | 100% |
CLARA 2D CNN accuracy compared with most common machine learning methods. The classification task aims at recognizing E tumors from G1 ones. The first two rows report the per-class accuracy, with the last row showing the mean accuracy.
| Accuracy | PCA + SVM | PCA + LDA | LDA | ANN | CNN | SENet | EfficientNet | CLARA (ResNet18) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 41.9% | 100.0% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
|
| 4.2% | 4.2% | 29.2% | 16.7% | 20.8% | 79.2% | 66.7% | 83.3% |
|
| 58.2% | 58.2% | 36.4% | 63.0% | 65.4% | 90.9% | 85.4% | 92.73% |
Figure 4Application of CAM procedure on a single sample. The up-left image refers to the 1D RS plot, while the up-center image is the representation of that signal in the transformed 2D space. The up-right image is the 7 × 7 CAM output, which is smoothed and mapped to a different color palette through the JET color function for easier visualization (low-left image). Finally, the processed CAM image can be merged with the 2D signal image (low-right image) to qualitatively check the signal parts areas most responsible of the sample classification.