| Literature DB >> 36246965 |
Yuli Chen1, Yao Zhou1, Guoping Chen1, Yuchuan Guo2, Yanquan Lv2, Miao Ma1, Zhao Pei1, Zengguo Sun1.
Abstract
The formation of breast tubules plays an important role in the pathological grading of breast cancer. Breast tubules surrounded by a large number of epithelial cells are located in the subcutaneous tissue of the chest. The shapes of breast tubules are various, including tubular, round, and oval, which makes the process of breast tubule segmentation a difficult task. Deep learning technology, capable of learning complex data structures via efficient representation, could help pathologists accurately detect breast tubules in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained images. In this paper, we propose a deep learning model named DKS-DoubleU-Net to accurately segment breast tubules with complex appearances in H&E images. The proposed DKS-DoubleU-Net model suggests using a DenseNet module as the encoder of the second subnetwork of DoubleU-Net, which utilizes dense features between layers and strengthens the propagation of features extracted in all previous layers, in order to better discover the intrinsic characteristics of breast tubules with complex structures and diverse shapes. Moreover, a feature fusing module called Kernel Selecting Module (KSM) is inserted before each output layer of the two U-Net branches of the DoubleU-Net, to implement a multiscale feature fusion via a self-adaptive kernel selecting for the sake of accurate segmentation of breast tubules in different sizes. The experiments on the public BRACS dataset and a private clinical dataset have shown that our model achieves better segmentation performance, compared to the state-of-art models of U-Net, DoubleU-Net, ResUnet++, HRNet, and DeepLabV3+. Specifically, on the public BRACS dataset, our method produced an F1-Score of 92.98%, which outperforms the F1-Score of U-Net, DoubleU-Net, and HRNet by 4.24%, 0.37%, and 1.68%, respectively, and is much better than performances of DeepLabV3+ and ResUnet++ by 7.83% and 23.84%, respectively. On the private clinic dataset, the proposed model achieved an F1-Score of 73.13%, which has shown an improvement of 10.31%, 1.89%, 4.88%, 15.47%, and 31.1% to the performances of the U-Net, DoubleU-Net, HRNet, DeepLabV3+, and ResUnet++, respectively. Superior performance could also be observed when comparing the proposed DKS-DoubleU-Net with the others using the metrics of Dice and mIou.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36246965 PMCID: PMC9553497 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2961610
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Demostration of the complexity of breast tubules. Breast tubules are usually of diverse appearances, complex structures, and highly sophisticated morphology. The first and third row show several breast tubular images from public BRACS dataset and private clinical dataset. The second and fourth row represent their corresponding ground truths.
Figure 2The overall architecture of the proposed DKS-DoubleU-Net model and the details of the introduced DenseNet and Kernel Selecting Module (KSM) for semantic breast tubule segmentation. (a) The overall architecture of the proposed DKS-DoubleU-Net model. (b) The detailed architecture of the DenseNet module [23]. (c) The detailed architecture of the Kernel Selecting Module (KSM) module [24].
The quantitative comparison of the tubule segmentation results obtained by different models on the test set of the private clinical dataset.
| Model | Dice | mIou | Recall | Precision | F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DKS-DoubleU-Net | 0.7002 | 0.5547 | 0.7636 | 0.7016 | 0.7313 |
| DoubleU-Net+DenseNet | 0.6897 | 0.5412 | 0.7442 | 0.7066 | 0.7249 |
| DoubleU-Net+KSM | 0.6820 | 0.5364 | 0.7165 | 0.7243 | 0.7204 |
| DoubleU-Net | 0.6798 | 0.5308 | 0.7450 | 0.6825 | 0.7124 |
| U-Net | 0.6115 | 0.4519 | 0.6568 | 0.6020 | 0.6282 |
| ResNet++ | 0.3922 | 0.2672 | 0.6610 | 0.3081 | 0.4203 |
| DeepLabV3+ | 0.5513 | 0.3955 | 0.5885 | 0.5651 | 0.5766 |
| HRNet | 0.6608 | 0.5085 | 0.6496 | 0.7188 | 0.6825 |
Figure 3The illustrative tubule segmentation results of different models on the test set of the private clinical dataset. The first row lists the original images; images a(1)-f(1) in the second row are the corresponding tubule annotation masks; images a(2)-f(2) in the third row are the tubule segmentation results performed by DKS-DoubleU-Net; images a(3)-f(3) in the fourth row are the results output by the DoubleU-Net which added DenseNet; images a(4)-f(4) in the fifth row are the results obtained by the DoubleU-Net which added Kernel Selecting Module (KSM); images a(5)-f(5) in the sixth row are the results output by the DoubleU-Net; images a(6)-f(6) in the seventh row are the results output by Unet; images a(7)-f(7) correspond to the results of ResUnet++; images a(8)-f(8) are the results obtained by DeepLabV3+, and images a(9)-f(9) show the tubule segmentation results of HRNet.
The quantitative comparison of tubule segmentation results obtained by different models on the test set of the public BRACS dataset.
| Model | Dice | mIou | Recall | Precision | F1-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DKS-DoubleU-Net | 0.9272 | 0.8655 | 0.9292 | 0.9305 | 0.9298 |
| DoubleU-Net+DenseNet | 0.9247 | 0.8617 | 0.9288 | 0.9259 | 0.9273 |
| DoubleU-Net+KSM | 0.9269 | 0.8655 | 0.9328 | 0.9264 | 0.9296 |
| DoubleU-Net | 0.9219 | 0.8570 | 0.9204 | 0.9319 | 0.9261 |
| U-Net | 0.8793 | 0.7887 | 0.9239 | 0.8537 | 0.8874 |
| ResNet++ | 0.6547 | 0.5020 | 0.7450 | 0.6450 | 0.6914 |
| DeepLabV3+ | 0.8413 | 0.7301 | 0.8547 | 0.8483 | 0.8515 |
| HRNet | 0.9089 | 0.8348 | 0.9368 | 0.8903 | 0.9130 |
Figure 4The illustrative tubule segmentation results of different models on the test set of the public BRACS dataset. The first row lists the original images; images a(1)-f(1) in the second row are the corresponding tubule annotation masks; images a(2)-f(2) in the third row are the tubule segmentation results performed by DKS-DoubleU-Net; images a(3)-f(3) in the fourth row are the results output by the DoubleU-Net which added DenseNet; images a(4)-f(4) in the fifth row are the results output by the DoubleU-Net which added Kernel Selecting Module (KSM); images a(5)-f(5) in the sixth row are the results output by the DoubleU-Net; images a(6)-f(6) in the seventh row are the results output by Unet; images a(7)-f(7) correspond to the results of ResUnet++; images a(8)-f(8) are the results obtained by DeepLabV3+, and images a(9)-f(9) show the tubule segmentation results of HRNet.
Comparison of the computational complexity of the models.
| Model | Trainable params | FLOPs |
|---|---|---|
| DKS-DoubleU-Net | 127.38 M | 254.71 M |
| DoubleU-Net+DenseNet | 127.24 M | 254.42 M |
| DoubleU-Net+KSM | 111.88 M | 223.69 M |
| DoubleU-Net | 111.73 M | 223.40 M |
| U-Net | 98.68 M | 197.31 M |
| ResNet++ | 15.50 M | 30.97 M |
| DeepLabV3+ | 155.88 M | 311.76 M |
| HRNet | 108.93 M | 217.85 M |