| Literature DB >> 36262868 |
Zheming Li1,2,3,4, Li Yang3,5, Liqi Shu6, Zhuo Yu7, Jian Huang1,2,3, Jing Li1,2,3, Lingdong Chen1,2,3, Shasha Hu8, Ting Shu9, Gang Yu1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Lung segmentation using computed tomography (CT) images is important for diagnosing various lung diseases. Currently, no lung segmentation method has been developed for assessing the CT images of preschool children, which may differ from those of adults due to (1) presence of artifacts caused by the shaking of children, (2) loss of a localized lung area due to a failure to hold their breath, and (3) a smaller CT chest area, compared with adults. To solve these unique problems, this study developed an automatic lung segmentation method by combining traditional imaging methods with ResUnet using the CT images of 60 children, aged 0-6 years. First, the CT images were cropped and zoomed through ecological operations to concentrate the segmentation task on the chest area. Then, a ResUnet model was used to improve the loss for lung segmentation, and case-based connected domain operations were performed to filter the segmentation results and improve segmentation accuracy. The proposed method demonstrated promising segmentation results on a test set of 12 cases, with average accuracy, Dice, precision, and recall of 0.9479, 0.9678, 0.9711, and 0.9715, respectively, which achieved the best performance relative to the other six models. This study shows that the proposed method can achieve good segmentation results in CT of preschool children, laying a good foundation for the diagnosis of children's lung diseases.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36262868 PMCID: PMC9576440 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7321330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Chest CT image of a preschool child with (a) artifacts (labeled as 1), (b) loss of a local area of the lung (labeled as 2), and (c) adult lungs image which has larger lung area than children).
Figure 2Algorithm flowchart of the proposed segmentation.
Figure 3Image cropping and zooming of the model.
Figure 4Illustration of the (a) original CT images (size, 512∗512) and (b) the corresponding cropped and zoomed images (size, 256∗256).
Figure 5The overall structure of the ResUnet module.
Figure 6The overall layout of the Res block.
Figure 7Comparisons before and after case-based filter. The red parts represent the segmentation result. (a) Segmentation results before case-based filter. (b) Segmentation results after case-based filter.
Dataset.
| Ages (years) | Train set | Test set |
|---|---|---|
| 0-2 | 28 | 5 |
| 3-4 | 17 | 6 |
| 5-6 | 3 | 1 |
|
| ||
| All | 48 | 12 |
Performance of the test set.
| Case no. | IOU | Dice | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9552 | 0.9754 | 0.9733 | 0.9782 |
| 2 | 0.9602 | 0.9794 | 0.9802 | 0.9789 |
| 3 | 0.9543 | 0.9746 | 0.9805 | 0.9699 |
| 4 | 0.9604 | 0.9786 | 0.9788 | 0.9791 |
| 5 | 0.9599 | 0.9783 | 0.9789 | 0.9792 |
| 6 | 0.9442 | 0.9664 | 0.9608 | 0.9809 |
| 7 | 0.9559 | 0.9753 | 0.9786 | 0.9753 |
| 8 | 0.9578 | 0.9778 | 0.9873 | 0.969 |
| 9 | 0.8874 | 0.9084 | 0.907 | 0.9481 |
| 10 | 0.9444 | 0.9647 | 0.9736 | 0.966 |
| 11 | 0.95 | 0.9717 | 0.9717 | 0.9753 |
| 12 | 0.9449 | 0.9636 | 0.9829 | 0.9587 |
|
| ||||
| Average | 0.9479 | 0.9678 | 0.9711 | 0.9715 |
Segmentation results of different segmentation algorithms.
| Method | IOU | Dice | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unet | 0.934 | 0.9553 | 0.9561 | 0.9625 |
| Unet++ | 0.9338 | 0.9543 | 0.9493 | 0.9699 |
| Unet+++ | 0.9359 | 0.9568 | 0.9468 | 0.9748 |
| Attention-UNet | 0.9257 | 0.9482 | 0.9424 | 0.9673 |
| Swin-Unet | 0.8738 | 0.917 | 0.8998 | 0.949 |
| Trans-Unet | 0.9364 | 0.9569 | 0.9611 | 0.9592 |
| Proposed method | 0.9479 | 0.9678 | 0.9711 | 0.9715 |
| ResUnet (adult) | 0.9163 | 0.9368 | 0.9351 | 0.9451 |
Figure 8The proposed method versus gold standard method and other methods.
Performance of the Unet model applied to adult lung segmentation on our test set.
| Case no. | IOU | Dice | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9226 | 0.9436 | 0.9357 | 0.9535 |
| 2 | 0.9305 | 0.9497 | 0.9481 | 0.9514 |
| 3 | 0.9164 | 0.9397 | 0.937 | 0.9434 |
| 4 | 0.9291 | 0.9477 | 0.9413 | 0.9558 |
| 5 | 0.9248 | 0.9441 | 0.9438 | 0.9494 |
| 6 | 0.9172 | 0.9391 | 0.9283 | 0.9562 |
| 7 | 0.9261 | 0.9459 | 0.9436 | 0.9505 |
| 8 | 0.9295 | 0.9483 | 0.9507 | 0.9476 |
| 9 | 0.8561 | 0.8766 | 0.8764 | 0.909 |
| 10 | 0.912 | 0.9333 | 0.9365 | 0.9415 |
| 11 | 0.9158 | 0.9394 | 0.9331 | 0.9497 |
| 12 | 0.9151 | 0.9345 | 0.9462 | 0.9329 |
|
| ||||
| Average | 0.9163 | 0.9368 | 0.9351 | 0.9451 |