A slice classification neural network for automated classification of axial PET/CT slices from a multi-centric lymphoma dataset
Authors:
Shadab Ahamed,
Yixi Xu,
Ingrid Bloise,
Joo H. O,
Carlos F. Uribe,
Rahul Dodhia,
Juan L. Ferres,
Arman Rahmim
Abstract:
Automated slice classification is clinically relevant since it can be incorporated into medical image segmentation workflows as a preprocessing step that would flag slices with a higher probability of containing tumors, thereby directing physicians attention to the important slices. In this work, we train a ResNet-18 network to classify axial slices of lymphoma PET/CT images (collected from two in…
▽ More
Automated slice classification is clinically relevant since it can be incorporated into medical image segmentation workflows as a preprocessing step that would flag slices with a higher probability of containing tumors, thereby directing physicians attention to the important slices. In this work, we train a ResNet-18 network to classify axial slices of lymphoma PET/CT images (collected from two institutions) depending on whether the slice intercepted a tumor (positive slice) in the 3D image or if the slice did not (negative slice). Various instances of the network were trained on 2D axial datasets created in different ways: (i) slice-level split and (ii) patient-level split; inputs of different types were used: (i) only PET slices and (ii) concatenated PET and CT slices; and different training strategies were employed: (i) center-aware (CAW) and (ii) center-agnostic (CAG). Model performances were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and various binary classification metrics. We observe and describe a performance overestimation in the case of slice-level split as compared to the patient-level split training. The model trained using patient-level split data with the network input containing only PET slices in the CAG training regime was the best performing/generalizing model on a majority of metrics. Our models were additionally more closely compared using the sensitivity metric on the positive slices from their respective test sets.
△ Less
Submitted 11 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
Semi-supervised learning towards automated segmentation of PET images with limited annotations: Application to lymphoma patients
Authors:
Fereshteh Yousefirizi,
Isaac Shiri,
Joo Hyun O,
Ingrid Bloise,
Patrick Martineau,
Don Wilson,
François Bénard,
Laurie H. Sehn,
Kerry J. Savage,
Habib Zaidi,
Carlos F. Uribe,
Arman Rahmim
Abstract:
The time-consuming task of manual segmentation challenges routine systematic quantification of disease burden. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) hold significant promise to reliably identify locations and boundaries of tumors from PET scans. We aimed to leverage the need for annotated data via semi-supervised approaches, with application to PET images of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) an…
▽ More
The time-consuming task of manual segmentation challenges routine systematic quantification of disease burden. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) hold significant promise to reliably identify locations and boundaries of tumors from PET scans. We aimed to leverage the need for annotated data via semi-supervised approaches, with application to PET images of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). We analyzed 18F-FDG PET images of 292 patients with PMBCL (n=104) and DLBCL (n=188) (n=232 for training and validation, and n=60 for external testing). We employed FCM and MS losses for training a 3D U-Net with different levels of supervision: i) fully supervised methods with labeled FCM (LFCM) as well as Unified focal and Dice loss functions, ii) unsupervised methods with Robust FCM (RFCM) and Mumford-Shah (MS) loss functions, and iii) Semi-supervised methods based on FCM (RFCM+LFCM), as well as MS loss in combination with supervised Dice loss (MS+Dice). Unified loss function yielded higher Dice score (mean +/- standard deviation (SD)) (0.73 +/- 0.03; 95% CI, 0.67-0.8) compared to Dice loss (p-value<0.01). Semi-supervised (RFCM+alpha*LFCM) with alpha=0.3 showed the best performance, with a Dice score of 0.69 +/- 0.03 (95% CI, 0.45-0.77) outperforming (MS+alpha*Dice) for any supervision level (any alpha) (p<0.01). The best performer among (MS+alpha*Dice) semi-supervised approaches with alpha=0.2 showed a Dice score of 0.60 +/- 0.08 (95% CI, 0.44-0.76) compared to another supervision level in this semi-supervised approach (p<0.01). Semi-supervised learning via FCM loss (RFCM+alpha*LFCM) showed improved performance compared to supervised approaches. Considering the time-consuming nature of expert manual delineations and intra-observer variabilities, semi-supervised approaches have significant potential for automated segmentation workflows.
△ Less
Submitted 25 March, 2024; v1 submitted 19 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
