Role of Edge Device and Cloud Machine Learning in Point-of-Care Solutions Using Imaging Diagnostics for Population Screening
Authors:
Amit Kharat,
Vinay Duddalwar,
Krishna Saoji,
Ashrika Gaikwad,
Viraj Kulkarni,
Gunjan Naik,
Rohit Lokwani,
Swaraj Kasliwal,
Sudeep Kondal,
Tanveer Gupte,
Aniruddha Pant
Abstract:
Edge devices are revolutionizing diagnostics. Edge devices can reside within or adjacent to imaging tools such as digital Xray, CT, MRI, or ultrasound equipment. These devices are either CPUs or GPUs with advanced processing deep and machine learning (artificial intelligence) algorithms that assist in classification and triage solutions to flag studies as either normal or abnormal, TB or healthy (…
▽ More
Edge devices are revolutionizing diagnostics. Edge devices can reside within or adjacent to imaging tools such as digital Xray, CT, MRI, or ultrasound equipment. These devices are either CPUs or GPUs with advanced processing deep and machine learning (artificial intelligence) algorithms that assist in classification and triage solutions to flag studies as either normal or abnormal, TB or healthy (in case of TB screening), suspected COVID-19/other pneumonia or unremarkable (in hospital or hotspot settings). These can be deployed as screening point-of-care (PoC) solutions; this is particularly true for digital and portable X-ray devices. Edge device learning can also be used for mammography and CT studies where it can identify microcalcification and stroke, respectively. These solutions can be considered the first line of pre-screening before the imaging specialist actually reviews scans and makes a final diagnosis. The key advantage of these tools is that they are instant, can be deployed remotely where experts are not available to perform pre-screening before the experts actually review, and are not limited by internet bandwidth as the nano learning data centers are placed next to the device.
△ Less
Submitted 18 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
Benchmarking features from different radiomics toolkits / toolboxes using Image Biomarkers Standardization Initiative
Authors:
Mingxi Lei,
Bino Varghese,
Darryl Hwang,
Steven Cen,
Xiaomeng Lei,
Afshin Azadikhah,
Bhushan Desai,
Assad Oberai,
Vinay Duddalwar
Abstract:
There is no consensus regarding the radiomic feature terminology, the underlying mathematics, or their implementation. This creates a scenario where features extracted using different toolboxes could not be used to build or validate the same model leading to a non-generalization of radiomic results. In this study, the image biomarker standardization initiative (IBSI) established phantom and benchm…
▽ More
There is no consensus regarding the radiomic feature terminology, the underlying mathematics, or their implementation. This creates a scenario where features extracted using different toolboxes could not be used to build or validate the same model leading to a non-generalization of radiomic results. In this study, the image biomarker standardization initiative (IBSI) established phantom and benchmark values were used to compare the variation of the radiomic features while using 6 publicly available software programs and 1 in-house radiomics pipeline. All IBSI-standardized features (11 classes, 173 in total) were extracted. The relative differences between the extracted feature values from the different software and the IBSI benchmark values were calculated to measure the inter-software agreement. To better understand the variations, features are further grouped into 3 categories according to their properties: 1) morphology, 2) statistic/histogram and 3)texture features. While a good agreement was observed for a majority of radiomics features across the various programs, relatively poor agreement was observed for morphology features. Significant differences were also found in programs that use different gray level discretization approaches. Since these programs do not include all IBSI features, the level of quantitative assessment for each category was analyzed using Venn and the UpSet diagrams and also quantified using two ad hoc metrics. Morphology features earns lowest scores for both metrics, indicating that morphological features are not consistently evaluated among software programs. We conclude that radiomic features calculated using different software programs may not be identical and reliable. Further studies are needed to standardize the workflow of radiomic feature extraction.
△ Less
Submitted 23 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
