-
Modified CycleGAN for the synthesization of samples for wheat head segmentation
Authors:
Jaden Myers,
Keyhan Najafian,
Farhad Maleki,
Katie Ovens
Abstract:
Deep learning models have been used for a variety of image processing tasks. However, most of these models are developed through supervised learning approaches, which rely heavily on the availability of large-scale annotated datasets. Develo** such datasets is tedious and expensive. In the absence of an annotated dataset, synthetic data can be used for model development; however, due to the subs…
▽ More
Deep learning models have been used for a variety of image processing tasks. However, most of these models are developed through supervised learning approaches, which rely heavily on the availability of large-scale annotated datasets. Develo** such datasets is tedious and expensive. In the absence of an annotated dataset, synthetic data can be used for model development; however, due to the substantial differences between simulated and real data, a phenomenon referred to as domain gap, the resulting models often underperform when applied to real data. In this research, we aim to address this challenge by first computationally simulating a large-scale annotated dataset and then using a generative adversarial network (GAN) to fill the gap between simulated and real images. This approach results in a synthetic dataset that can be effectively utilized to train a deep-learning model. Using this approach, we developed a realistic annotated synthetic dataset for wheat head segmentation. This dataset was then used to develop a deep-learning model for semantic segmentation. The resulting model achieved a Dice score of 83.4\% on an internal dataset and Dice scores of 79.6% and 83.6% on two external Global Wheat Head Detection datasets. While we proposed this approach in the context of wheat head segmentation, it can be generalized to other crop types or, more broadly, to images with dense, repeated patterns such as those found in cellular imagery.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
RIDGE: Reproducibility, Integrity, Dependability, Generalizability, and Efficiency Assessment of Medical Image Segmentation Models
Authors:
Farhad Maleki,
Linda Moy,
Reza Forghani,
Tapotosh Ghosh,
Katie Ovens,
Steve Langer,
Pouria Rouzrokh,
Bardia Khosravi,
Ali Ganjizadeh,
Daniel Warren,
Roxana Daneshjou,
Mana Moassefi,
Atlas Haddadi Avval,
Susan Sotardi,
Neil Tenenholtz,
Felipe Kitamura,
Timothy Kline
Abstract:
Deep learning techniques hold immense promise for advancing medical image analysis, particularly in tasks like image segmentation, where precise annotation of regions or volumes of interest within medical images is crucial but manually laborious and prone to interobserver and intraobserver biases. As such, deep learning approaches could provide automated solutions for such applications. However, t…
▽ More
Deep learning techniques hold immense promise for advancing medical image analysis, particularly in tasks like image segmentation, where precise annotation of regions or volumes of interest within medical images is crucial but manually laborious and prone to interobserver and intraobserver biases. As such, deep learning approaches could provide automated solutions for such applications. However, the potential of these techniques is often undermined by challenges in reproducibility and generalizability, which are key barriers to their clinical adoption. This paper introduces the RIDGE checklist, a comprehensive framework designed to assess the Reproducibility, Integrity, Dependability, Generalizability, and Efficiency of deep learning-based medical image segmentation models. The RIDGE checklist is not just a tool for evaluation but also a guideline for researchers striving to improve the quality and transparency of their work. By adhering to the principles outlined in the RIDGE checklist, researchers can ensure that their developed segmentation models are robust, scientifically valid, and applicable in a clinical setting.
△ Less
Submitted 3 July, 2024; v1 submitted 16 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Generalizability of Machine Learning Models: Quantitative Evaluation of Three Methodological Pitfalls
Authors:
Farhad Maleki,
Katie Ovens,
Rajiv Gupta,
Caroline Reinhold,
Alan Spatz,
Reza Forghani
Abstract:
Purpose: Despite the potential of machine learning models, the lack of generalizability has hindered their widespread adoption in clinical practice. We investigate three methodological pitfalls: (1) violation of independence assumption, (2) model evaluation with an inappropriate performance indicator or baseline for comparison, and (3) batch effect. Materials and Methods: Using several retrospecti…
▽ More
Purpose: Despite the potential of machine learning models, the lack of generalizability has hindered their widespread adoption in clinical practice. We investigate three methodological pitfalls: (1) violation of independence assumption, (2) model evaluation with an inappropriate performance indicator or baseline for comparison, and (3) batch effect. Materials and Methods: Using several retrospective datasets, we implement machine learning models with and without the pitfalls to quantitatively illustrate these pitfalls' effect on model generalizability. Results: Violation of independence assumption, more specifically, applying oversampling, feature selection, and data augmentation before splitting data into train, validation, and test sets, respectively, led to misleading and superficial gains in F1 scores of 71.2% in predicting local recurrence and 5.0% in predicting 3-year overall survival in head and neck cancer as well as 46.0% in distinguishing histopathological patterns in lung cancer. Further, randomly distributing data points for a subject across training, validation, and test sets led to a 21.8% superficial increase in F1 score. Also, we showed the importance of the choice of performance measures and baseline for comparison. In the presence of batch effect, a model built for pneumonia detection led to F1 score of 98.7%. However, when the same model was applied to a new dataset of normal patients, it only correctly classified 3.86% of the samples. Conclusions: These methodological pitfalls cannot be captured using internal model evaluation, and the inaccurate predictions made by such models may lead to wrong conclusions and interpretations. Therefore, understanding and avoiding these pitfalls is necessary for develo** generalizable models.
△ Less
Submitted 7 September, 2022; v1 submitted 1 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
