Nodule detection and generation on chest X-rays: NODE21 Challenge
Authors:
Ecem Sogancioglu,
Bram van Ginneken,
Finn Behrendt,
Marcel Bengs,
Alexander Schlaefer,
Miron Radu,
Di Xu,
Ke Sheng,
Fabien Scalzo,
Eric Marcus,
Samuele Papa,
Jonas Teuwen,
Ernst Th. Scholten,
Steven Schalekamp,
Nils Hendrix,
Colin Jacobs,
Ward Hendrix,
Clara I Sánchez,
Keelin Murphy
Abstract:
Pulmonary nodules may be an early manifestation of lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among both men and women. Numerous studies have established that deep learning methods can yield high-performance levels in the detection of lung nodules in chest X-rays. However, the lack of gold-standard public datasets slows down the progression of the research and prevents benchmarking of…
▽ More
Pulmonary nodules may be an early manifestation of lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among both men and women. Numerous studies have established that deep learning methods can yield high-performance levels in the detection of lung nodules in chest X-rays. However, the lack of gold-standard public datasets slows down the progression of the research and prevents benchmarking of methods for this task. To address this, we organized a public research challenge, NODE21, aimed at the detection and generation of lung nodules in chest X-rays. While the detection track assesses state-of-the-art nodule detection systems, the generation track determines the utility of nodule generation algorithms to augment training data and hence improve the performance of the detection systems. This paper summarizes the results of the NODE21 challenge and performs extensive additional experiments to examine the impact of the synthetically generated nodule training images on the detection algorithm performance.
△ Less
Submitted 4 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
Computer aided detection of tuberculosis on chest radiographs: An evaluation of the CAD4TB v6 system
Authors:
Keelin Murphy,
Shifa Salman Habib,
Syed Mohammad Asad Zaidi,
Saira Khowaja,
Aamir Khan,
Jaime Melendez,
Ernst T. Scholten,
Farhan Amad,
Steven Schalekamp,
Maurits Verhagen,
Rick H. H. M. Philipsen,
Annet Meijers,
Bram van Ginneken
Abstract:
There is a growing interest in the automated analysis of chest X-Ray (CXR) as a sensitive and inexpensive means of screening susceptible populations for pulmonary tuberculosis. In this work we evaluate the latest version of CAD4TB, a commercial software platform designed for this purpose. Version 6 of CAD4TB was released in 2018 and is here tested on a fully independent dataset of 5565 CXR images…
▽ More
There is a growing interest in the automated analysis of chest X-Ray (CXR) as a sensitive and inexpensive means of screening susceptible populations for pulmonary tuberculosis. In this work we evaluate the latest version of CAD4TB, a commercial software platform designed for this purpose. Version 6 of CAD4TB was released in 2018 and is here tested on a fully independent dataset of 5565 CXR images with GeneXpert (Xpert) sputum test results available (854 Xpert positive subjects). A subset of 500 subjects (50% Xpert positive) was reviewed and annotated by 5 expert observers independently to obtain a radiological reference standard. The latest version of CAD4TB is found to outperform all previous versions in terms of area under receiver operating curve (ROC) with respect to both Xpert and radiological reference standards. Improvements with respect to Xpert are most apparent at high sensitivity levels with a specificity of 76% obtained at a fixed 90% sensitivity. When compared with the radiological reference standard, CAD4TB v6 also outperformed previous versions by a considerable margin and achieved 98% specificity at the 90% sensitivity setting. No substantial difference was found between the performance of CAD4TB v6 and any of the various expert observers against the Xpert reference standard. A cost and efficiency analysis on this dataset demonstrates that in a standard clinical situation, operating at 90% sensitivity, users of CAD4TB v6 can process 132 subjects per day at n average cost per screen of \$5.95 per subject, while users of version 3 process only 85 subjects per day at a cost of \$8.38 per subject. At all tested operating points version 6 is shown to be more efficient and cost effective than any other version.
△ Less
Submitted 2 April, 2020; v1 submitted 8 March, 2019;
originally announced March 2019.
