Image Quality Assessment Using Convolutional Neural Network in Clinical Skin Images

Hyeon Ki Jeong , Christine Park , Simon W. Jiang , Matilda Nicholas , Suephy Chen , Ricardo Henao , Meenal Kheterpal
{"title":"Image Quality Assessment Using Convolutional Neural Network in Clinical Skin Images","authors":"Hyeon Ki Jeong ,&nbsp;Christine Park ,&nbsp;Simon W. Jiang ,&nbsp;Matilda Nicholas ,&nbsp;Suephy Chen ,&nbsp;Ricardo Henao ,&nbsp;Meenal Kheterpal","doi":"10.1016/j.xjidi.2024.100285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The image quality received for clinical evaluation is often suboptimal. The goal is to develop an image quality analysis tool to assess patient- and primary care physician–derived images using deep learning model. Dataset included patient- and primary care physician–derived images from August 21, 2018 to June 30, 2022 with 4 unique quality labels. VGG16 model was fine tuned with input data, and optimal threshold was determined by Youden’s index. Ordinal labels were transformed to binary labels using a majority vote because model distinguishes between 2 categories (good vs bad). At a threshold of 0.587, area under the curve for the test set was 0.885 (95% confidence interval = 0.838–0.933); sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.829, 0.784, 0.906, and 0.645, respectively. Independent validation of 300 additional images (from patients and primary care physicians) demonstrated area under the curve of 0.864 (95% confidence interval = 0.818–0.909) and area under the curve of 0.902 (95% confidence interval = 0.85–0.95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the 300 images were 0.827, 0.800, 0.959, and 0.450, respectively. We demonstrate a practical approach improving the image quality for clinical workflow. Although users may have to capture additional images, this is offset by the improved workload and efficiency for clinical teams.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73548,"journal":{"name":"JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health","volume":"4 4","pages":"Article 100285"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667026724000328/pdfft?md5=3096c45a51c4538d05749966b424a85b&pid=1-s2.0-S2667026724000328-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667026724000328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The image quality received for clinical evaluation is often suboptimal. The goal is to develop an image quality analysis tool to assess patient- and primary care physician–derived images using deep learning model. Dataset included patient- and primary care physician–derived images from August 21, 2018 to June 30, 2022 with 4 unique quality labels. VGG16 model was fine tuned with input data, and optimal threshold was determined by Youden’s index. Ordinal labels were transformed to binary labels using a majority vote because model distinguishes between 2 categories (good vs bad). At a threshold of 0.587, area under the curve for the test set was 0.885 (95% confidence interval = 0.838–0.933); sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.829, 0.784, 0.906, and 0.645, respectively. Independent validation of 300 additional images (from patients and primary care physicians) demonstrated area under the curve of 0.864 (95% confidence interval = 0.818–0.909) and area under the curve of 0.902 (95% confidence interval = 0.85–0.95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the 300 images were 0.827, 0.800, 0.959, and 0.450, respectively. We demonstrate a practical approach improving the image quality for clinical workflow. Although users may have to capture additional images, this is offset by the improved workload and efficiency for clinical teams.

利用卷积神经网络评估临床皮肤图像的质量
用于临床评估的图像质量往往不尽如人意。我们的目标是开发一种图像质量分析工具,利用深度学习模型评估患者和主治医师来源的图像。数据集包括从 2018 年 8 月 21 日到 2022 年 6 月 30 日的患者和主治医生衍生图像,并带有 4 个独特的质量标签。根据输入数据对 VGG16 模型进行了微调,并根据尤登指数确定了最佳阈值。由于模型区分 2 个类别(好与坏),因此使用多数票将序数标签转换为二进制标签。阈值为 0.587 时,测试集的曲线下面积为 0.885(95% 置信区间 = 0.838-0.933);灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 0.829、0.784、0.906 和 0.645。对另外 300 张图像(来自患者和主治医生)的独立验证显示,曲线下面积分别为 0.864(95% 置信区间 = 0.818-0.909)和 0.902(95% 置信区间 = 0.85-0.95)。300 张图像的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 0.827、0.800、0.959 和 0.450。我们展示了一种提高临床工作流程图像质量的实用方法。虽然用户可能需要采集更多的图像,但临床团队的工作量和效率的提高抵消了这一损失。
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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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