Evaluation of the detection accuracy of a fully automated AI-based lesion segmentation tool in whole-body FDG PET/CT for lymphoma.

IF 4.2
Tshegofatso Masogo, Palak Wadhwa, Chimbabantu Kaoma, Yashna Seebarruth, Milani Qebetu, Kaluzi Banda, Pryaska Goorhoo, Khomotso Legodi, Dileep Kumar, Mike Sathekge, Keamogetswe Ramonaheng
{"title":"Evaluation of the detection accuracy of a fully automated AI-based lesion segmentation tool in whole-body FDG PET/CT for lymphoma.","authors":"Tshegofatso Masogo, Palak Wadhwa, Chimbabantu Kaoma, Yashna Seebarruth, Milani Qebetu, Kaluzi Banda, Pryaska Goorhoo, Khomotso Legodi, Dileep Kumar, Mike Sathekge, Keamogetswe Ramonaheng","doi":"10.1016/j.zemedi.2026.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study evaluated an AI-based lesion segmentation tool using a hybrid 2D-3D deep learning model based on the nnUNet architecture with a ResNet18 backbone, incorporating post-processing to reduce false positives and segmentation-related quantitative errors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Whole-body FDG PET/CT scans from 72 lymphoma patients (mean age 39.2 ± 18.6 years; 33 females, 39 males; 43.1% Hodgkin lymphoma, 56.9% non-Hodgkin lymphoma) acquired on a uMI550 digital PET/CT system were retrospectively analysed. Automated AI-based segmentations were compared with manual delineations by experienced physicians. Performance was assessed using F1-score, sensitivity, and positive predictive value. Quantitative agreement for all PET metrics was evaluated using Pearson correlation, concordance correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, regression, and Bland-Altman analysis. McNemar's test assessed detection differences. The correlations between DSC and image quality metrics were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 711 AI and 848 manually segmented lesions were analysed. The AI model achieved an excellent DSC (89.2%), sensitivity (82.9) and PPV (96.5) which indicated balanced detection performance. Strong correlations were observed for all quantitative parameters (r > 0.95, p < 0.001; CCC > 0.94; ICC > 0.94; 95% CI: 0.93-0.99), with minimal bias on Bland-Altman analysis. DSC showed a moderate negative correlation with liver SNR (r = -0.40, p < 0.001) and weak correlations with liver SUV metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The fully automated AI-based segmentation tool demonstrated good-to-excellent lesion detection accuracy and high quantitative concordance with manual segmentation in whole-body FDG PET/CT for lymphoma patients. Continued model refinement and region-specific training are warranted to enhance detection performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":101315,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2026.09.002","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

Background: This study evaluated an AI-based lesion segmentation tool using a hybrid 2D-3D deep learning model based on the nnUNet architecture with a ResNet18 backbone, incorporating post-processing to reduce false positives and segmentation-related quantitative errors.

Methods: Whole-body FDG PET/CT scans from 72 lymphoma patients (mean age 39.2 ± 18.6 years; 33 females, 39 males; 43.1% Hodgkin lymphoma, 56.9% non-Hodgkin lymphoma) acquired on a uMI550 digital PET/CT system were retrospectively analysed. Automated AI-based segmentations were compared with manual delineations by experienced physicians. Performance was assessed using F1-score, sensitivity, and positive predictive value. Quantitative agreement for all PET metrics was evaluated using Pearson correlation, concordance correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, regression, and Bland-Altman analysis. McNemar's test assessed detection differences. The correlations between DSC and image quality metrics were examined.

Results: A total of 711 AI and 848 manually segmented lesions were analysed. The AI model achieved an excellent DSC (89.2%), sensitivity (82.9) and PPV (96.5) which indicated balanced detection performance. Strong correlations were observed for all quantitative parameters (r > 0.95, p < 0.001; CCC > 0.94; ICC > 0.94; 95% CI: 0.93-0.99), with minimal bias on Bland-Altman analysis. DSC showed a moderate negative correlation with liver SNR (r = -0.40, p < 0.001) and weak correlations with liver SUV metrics.

Conclusion: The fully automated AI-based segmentation tool demonstrated good-to-excellent lesion detection accuracy and high quantitative concordance with manual segmentation in whole-body FDG PET/CT for lymphoma patients. Continued model refinement and region-specific training are warranted to enhance detection performance.

基于人工智能的全自动化病灶分割工具在FDG PET/CT对淋巴瘤的检测准确性评估。
背景:本研究评估了一种基于人工智能的病变分割工具,该工具使用基于nnUNet架构的混合2D-3D深度学习模型和ResNet18主干,结合后处理来减少误报和分割相关的定量误差。方法:回顾性分析采用uMI550数字PET/CT系统扫描的72例淋巴瘤患者(平均年龄39.2±18.6岁,女性33例,男性39例,霍奇金淋巴瘤43.1%,非霍奇金淋巴瘤56.9%)的全身FDG PET/CT扫描结果。将基于人工智能的自动分割与经验丰富的医生手动划定进行比较。使用f1评分、敏感性和阳性预测值评估性能。使用Pearson相关、一致性相关系数、类内相关系数、回归和Bland-Altman分析评估所有PET指标的定量一致性。McNemar的测试评估了检测差异。研究了DSC和图像质量指标之间的相关性。结果:共分析人工智能病变711例,人工分割病变848例。人工智能模型取得了优异的DSC(89.2%)、灵敏度(82.9)和PPV(96.5),表明检测性能平衡。所有定量参数均观察到强相关性(r > 0.95, p < 0.001; CCC > 0.94; ICC > 0.94; 95% CI: 0.93-0.99), Bland-Altman分析偏差最小。DSC与肝脏信噪比呈中度负相关(r = -0.40, p < 0.001),与肝脏SUV指标呈弱相关。结论:基于人工智能的全自动分割工具对淋巴瘤患者全身FDG PET/CT的病灶检测准确率高,与人工分割的定量一致性高。持续的模型改进和特定区域的训练是必要的,以提高检测性能。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书