Dataset Information

Robust performance of deep learning for distinguishing glioblastoma from single brain metastasis using radiomic features: model development and validation.

ABSTRACT: We evaluated the diagnostic performance and generalizability of traditional machine learning and deep learning models for distinguishing glioblastoma from single brain metastasis using radiomics. The training and external validation cohorts comprised 166 (109 glioblastomas and 57 metastases) and 82 (50 glioblastomas and 32 metastases) patients, respectively. Two-hundred-and-sixty-five radiomic features were extracted from semiautomatically segmented regions on contrast-enhancing and peritumoral T2 hyperintense masks and used as input data. For each of a deep neural network (DNN) and seven traditional machine learning classifiers combined with one of five feature selection methods, hyperparameters were optimized through tenfold cross-validation in the training cohort. The diagnostic performance of the optimized models and two neuroradiologists was tested in the validation cohort for distinguishing glioblastoma from metastasis. In the external validation, DNN showed the highest diagnostic performance, with an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.956 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.918-0.990), 90.6% (95% CI, 80.5-100), 88.0% (95% CI, 79.0-97.0), and 89.0% (95% CI, 82.3-95.8), respectively, compared to the best-performing traditional machine learning model (adaptive boosting combined with tree-based feature selection; AUC, 0.890 (95% CI, 0.823-0.947)) and human readers (AUC, 0.774 [95% CI, 0.685-0.852] and 0.904 [95% CI, 0.852-0.951]). The results demonstrated deep learning using radiomic features can be useful for distinguishing glioblastoma from metastasis with good generalizability.

SUBMITTER: Bae S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7374174 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Robust performance of deep learning for distinguishing glioblastoma from single brain metastasis using radiomic features: model development and validation.

Bae Sohi S An Chansik C Ahn Sung Soo SS Kim Hwiyoung H Han Kyunghwa K Kim Sang Wook SW Park Ji Eun JE Kim Ho Sung HS Lee Seung-Koo SK

Scientific reports 20200721 1

We evaluated the diagnostic performance and generalizability of traditional machine learning and deep learning models for distinguishing glioblastoma from single brain metastasis using radiomics. The training and external validation cohorts comprised 166 (109 glioblastomas and 57 metastases) and 82 (50 glioblastomas and 32 metastases) patients, respectively. Two-hundred-and-sixty-five radiomic features were extracted from semiautomatically segmented regions on contrast-enhancing and peritumoral ...[more]

PMID: 32694637

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of applying handcrafted radiomics (HCR) and deep learning-based radiomics (DLR) for the accurate preoperative classification of glioblastoma (GBM) and solitary brain metastasis (BM).MethodsA retrospective analysis of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of 140 patients (110 in the training dataset and 30 in the test dataset) with GBM and 128 patients (98 in the training dataset and 30 in the test dataset) with BM confirmed by surgical pathology was performed. The regions of interest (ROIs) on T1-weighted imaging (T1WI), T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), and contrast-enhanced T1WI (T1CE) were drawn manually, and then, HCR and DLR analyses were performed. On this basis, different machine learning algorithms were implemented and compared to find the optimal modeling method. The final classifiers were identified and validated for different MRI modalities using HCR features and HCR + DLR features. By analyzing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to evaluate the predictive efficacy of different methods.ResultsIn multiclassifier modeling, random forest modeling showed the best distinguishing performance among all MRI modalities. HCR models already showed good results for distinguishing between the two types of brain tumors in the test dataset (T1WI, AUC = 0.86; T2WI, AUC = 0.76; T1CE, AUC = 0.93). By adding DLR features, all AUCs showed significant improvement (T1WI, AUC = 0.87; T2WI, AUC = 0.80; T1CE, AUC = 0.97; p < 0.05). The T1CE-based radiomic model showed the best classification performance (AUC = 0.99 in the training dataset and AUC = 0.97 in the test dataset), surpassing the other MRI modalities (p < 0.05). The multimodality radiomic model also showed robust performance (AUC = 1 in the training dataset and AUC = 0.84 in the test dataset).ConclusionMachine learning models using MRI radiomic features can help distinguish GBM from BM effectively, especially the combination of HCR and DLR features.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sleep apnea is a respiratory disorder characterized by an intermittent reduction (hypopnea) or cessation (apnea) of breathing during sleep. Depending on the presence of a breathing effort, sleep apnea is divided into obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and central sleep apnea (CSA) based on the different pathologies involved. If the majority of apneas in a person are obstructive, they will be diagnosed as OSA or otherwise as CSA. In addition, as it is challenging and highly controversial to divide hypopneas into central or obstructive, the decision about sleep apnea type (OSA vs CSA) is made based on apneas only. Choosing the appropriate treatment relies on distinguishing between obstructive apnea (OA) and central apnea (CA). OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to develop a noncontact method to distinguish between OAs and CAs. METHODS:Five different computer vision-based algorithms were used to process infrared (IR) video data to track and analyze body movements to differentiate different types of apnea (OA vs CA). In the first two methods, supervised classifiers were trained to process optical flow information. In the remaining three methods, a convolutional neural network (CNN) was designed to extract distinctive features from optical flow and to distinguish OA from CA. RESULTS:Overnight sleeping data of 42 participants (mean age 53, SD 15 years; mean BMI 30, SD 7 kg/m2; 27 men and 15 women; mean number of OA 16, SD 30; mean number of CA 3, SD 7; mean apnea-hypopnea index 27, SD 31 events/hour; mean sleep duration 5 hours, SD 1 hour) were collected for this study. The test and train data were recorded in two separate laboratory rooms. The best-performing model (3D-CNN) obtained 95% accuracy and an F1 score of 89% in differentiating OA vs CA. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, the first vision-based method was developed that differentiates apnea types (OA vs CA). The developed algorithm tracks and analyses chest and abdominal movements captured via an IR video camera. Unlike previously developed approaches, this method does not require any attachment to a user that could potentially alter the sleeping condition.

Project description:PurposeTo improve the robustness of deep learning-based glioblastoma segmentation in a clinical setting with sparsified datasets.Materials and methodsIn this retrospective study, preoperative T1-weighted, T2-weighted, T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, and postcontrast T1-weighted MRI from 117 patients (median age, 64 years; interquartile range [IQR], 55-73 years; 76 men) included within the Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation (BraTS) dataset plus a clinical dataset (2012-2013) with similar imaging modalities of 634 patients (median age, 59 years; IQR, 49-69 years; 382 men) with glioblastoma from six hospitals were used. Expert tumor delineations on the postcontrast images were available, but for various clinical datasets, one or more sequences were missing. The convolutional neural network, DeepMedic, was trained on combinations of complete and incomplete data with and without site-specific data. Sparsified training was introduced, which randomly simulated missing sequences during training. The effects of sparsified training and center-specific training were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank tests for paired measurements.ResultsA model trained exclusively on BraTS data reached a median Dice score of 0.81 for segmentation on BraTS test data but only 0.49 on the clinical data. Sparsified training improved performance (adjusted P < .05), even when excluding test data with missing sequences, to median Dice score of 0.67. Inclusion of site-specific data during sparsified training led to higher model performance Dice scores greater than 0.8, on par with a model based on all complete and incomplete data. For the model using BraTS and clinical training data, inclusion of site-specific data or sparsified training was of no consequence.ConclusionAccurate and automatic segmentation of glioblastoma on clinical scans is feasible using a model based on large, heterogeneous, and partially incomplete datasets. Sparsified training may boost the performance of a smaller model based on public and site-specific data.Supplemental material is available for this article.Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Project description:BackgroundRadiomics analysis usually involves, especially in multicenter and large hospital studies, different imaging protocols for acquisition, reconstruction, and processing of data. Differences in protocols can lead to differences in the quantification of the biomarker distribution, leading to radiomic feature variability. The aim of our study was to identify those radiomic features robust to the different degrading factors in positron emission tomography (PET) studies. We proposed the use of the standardized measurements of the European Association Research Ltd. (EARL) accreditation to retrospectively identify the radiomic features having low variability to the different systems and reconstruction protocols. In addition, we presented a reproducible procedure to identify PET radiomic features robust to PET/CT imaging metal artifacts. In 27 heterogeneous homemade phantoms for which ground truth was accurately defined by CT segmentation, we evaluated the segmentation accuracy and radiomic feature reliability given by the contrast-oriented algorithm (COA) and the 40% threshold PET segmentation. In the comparison of two data sets, robustness was defined by Wilcoxon rank tests, bias was quantified by Bland-Altman (BA) plot analysis, and strong correlations were identified by Spearman correlation test (r > 0.8 and p satisfied multiple test Bonferroni correction).ResultsForty-eight radiomic features were robust to system, 22 to resolution, 102 to metal artifacts, and 42 to different PET segmentation tools. Overall, only 4 radiomic features were simultaneously robust to all degrading factors. Although both segmentation approaches significantly underestimated the volume with respect to the ground truth, with relative deviations of -62 ± 36% for COA and -50 ± 44% for 40%, radiomic features derived from the ground truth were strongly correlated and/or robust to 98 radiomic features derived from COA and to 102 from 40%.ConclusionIn multicenter studies, we recommend the analysis of EARL accreditation measurements in order to retrospectively identify the robust PET radiomic features. Furthermore, 4 radiomic features (area under the curve of the cumulative SUV volume histogram, skewness, kurtosis, and gray-level variance derived from GLRLM after application of an equal probability quantization algorithm on the voxels within lesion) were robust to all degrading factors. In addition, the feasibility of 40% and COA segmentations for their use in radiomics analysis has been demonstrated.

Dataset Information

Robust performance of deep learning for distinguishing glioblastoma from single brain metastasis using radiomic features: model development and validation.

Publications

Robust performance of deep learning for distinguishing glioblastoma from single brain metastasis using radiomic features: model development and validation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets