Clinical performance review for 3-D Deep Learning segmentation of stroke infarct from diffusion-weighted images

Q4 Neuroscience
Freda Werdiger , Vignan Yogendrakumar , Milanka Visser , James Kolacz , Christina Lam , Mitchell Hill , Chushuang Chen , Mark W. Parsons , Andrew Bivard
{"title":"Clinical performance review for 3-D Deep Learning segmentation of stroke infarct from diffusion-weighted images","authors":"Freda Werdiger ,&nbsp;Vignan Yogendrakumar ,&nbsp;Milanka Visser ,&nbsp;James Kolacz ,&nbsp;Christina Lam ,&nbsp;Mitchell Hill ,&nbsp;Chushuang Chen ,&nbsp;Mark W. Parsons ,&nbsp;Andrew Bivard","doi":"10.1016/j.ynirp.2024.100196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>During the subacute phase of ischemic stroke, MR diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is used to assess the extent of tissue injury. Segmentation of DWI infarct is challenging due to disease variability, but Deep Learning (DL) provides a solution, outperforming existing methods on small datasets. However, a lack of clinically meaningful performance evaluation hinders clinical translation. Here we develop a DL DWI segmentation tool and provide clinical performance review.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Subjects in this retrospective study presented with stroke symptoms and later underwent DWI imaging. DL architectures U-Net and DenseNet were used to develop a DWI segmentation tool. The Dice Similarly Coefficient (DSC) was used to select the best- and worst-performing model. Clinical experts reviewed these models on the clinical test set, agreeing with the model if no 'significant’ error was present. The average agreement with the model and interrater agreement was also derived.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 573 participants with an ischemic stroke were included. The DenseNet delivered the best model (DSC = 0.831 ± 0.064) with a mean inference time of 0.07 s. Clinicians compared this with the worst model (U-Net, DSC = 0.759 ± 0.122), agreeing with the DenseNet predictions more than the U-Net (83.8 % vs. 79.3 %). Clinicians also agreed with each other more over performance interpretation when evaluating the DenseNet over the U-Net (87.9 % vs. 72.7 %).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our DWI segmentation tool achieved high performance with clinical review providing meaningful performance evaluation. Model development will continue towards prospective deployment before which clinical review will be repeated. This work will benefit physicians in assessing patient prognosis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74277,"journal":{"name":"Neuroimage. Reports","volume":"4 1","pages":"Article 100196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666956024000023/pdfft?md5=f324aa4c5c3ee9cb6266753d69b4de8d&pid=1-s2.0-S2666956024000023-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroimage. Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666956024000023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Neuroscience","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

During the subacute phase of ischemic stroke, MR diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is used to assess the extent of tissue injury. Segmentation of DWI infarct is challenging due to disease variability, but Deep Learning (DL) provides a solution, outperforming existing methods on small datasets. However, a lack of clinically meaningful performance evaluation hinders clinical translation. Here we develop a DL DWI segmentation tool and provide clinical performance review.

Methods

Subjects in this retrospective study presented with stroke symptoms and later underwent DWI imaging. DL architectures U-Net and DenseNet were used to develop a DWI segmentation tool. The Dice Similarly Coefficient (DSC) was used to select the best- and worst-performing model. Clinical experts reviewed these models on the clinical test set, agreeing with the model if no 'significant’ error was present. The average agreement with the model and interrater agreement was also derived.

Results

In total, 573 participants with an ischemic stroke were included. The DenseNet delivered the best model (DSC = 0.831 ± 0.064) with a mean inference time of 0.07 s. Clinicians compared this with the worst model (U-Net, DSC = 0.759 ± 0.122), agreeing with the DenseNet predictions more than the U-Net (83.8 % vs. 79.3 %). Clinicians also agreed with each other more over performance interpretation when evaluating the DenseNet over the U-Net (87.9 % vs. 72.7 %).

Conclusion

Our DWI segmentation tool achieved high performance with clinical review providing meaningful performance evaluation. Model development will continue towards prospective deployment before which clinical review will be repeated. This work will benefit physicians in assessing patient prognosis.

从弥散加权图像中对中风梗塞进行三维深度学习分割的临床性能评估
导言在缺血性中风的亚急性阶段,磁共振弥散加权成像(DWI)用于评估组织损伤的程度。由于疾病的可变性,DWI 梗死的分割具有挑战性,但深度学习(DL)提供了一种解决方案,在小型数据集上优于现有方法。然而,缺乏有临床意义的性能评估阻碍了临床转化。在此,我们开发了一种 DL DWI 分割工具,并提供了临床性能评估。方法在这项回顾性研究中,受试者出现中风症状,随后接受了 DWI 成像检查。DL 架构 U-Net 和 DenseNet 被用于开发 DWI 分割工具。Dice Similarly Coefficient (DSC) 用于选择表现最好和最差的模型。临床专家在临床测试集上对这些模型进行审查,如果没有出现 "重大 "错误,则同意该模型。结果共纳入了 573 名缺血性中风患者。DenseNet 提供了最佳模型(DSC = 0.831 ± 0.064),平均推理时间为 0.07 秒。临床医生将其与最差模型(U-Net,DSC = 0.759 ± 0.122)进行了比较,DenseNet 预测结果的一致性高于 U-Net(83.8% 对 79.3%)。临床医生在评估 DenseNet 而不是 U-Net 时,对性能解释的意见也更一致(87.9% 对 72.7%)。模型开发工作将继续进行,以实现前瞻性部署,在此之前将再次进行临床评估。这项工作将有助于医生评估患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroimage. Reports
Neuroimage. Reports Neuroscience (General)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
87 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信