Deep learning radiomics of ultrasonography for differentiating sclerosing adenosis from breast cancer.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Chunxiao Li, Huili Zhang, Jing Chen, Sihui Shao, Xin Li, Minghua Yao, Yi Zheng, Rong Wu, Jun Shi
{"title":"Deep learning radiomics of ultrasonography for differentiating sclerosing adenosis from breast cancer.","authors":"Chunxiao Li,&nbsp;Huili Zhang,&nbsp;Jing Chen,&nbsp;Sihui Shao,&nbsp;Xin Li,&nbsp;Minghua Yao,&nbsp;Yi Zheng,&nbsp;Rong Wu,&nbsp;Jun Shi","doi":"10.3233/CH-221608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of our study is to present a method combining radiomics with deep learning and clinical data for improved differential diagnosis of sclerosing adenosis (SA)and breast cancer (BC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 97 patients with SA and 100 patients with BC were included in this study. The best model for classification was selected from among four different convolutional neural network (CNN) models, including Vgg16, Resnet18, Resnet50, and Desenet121. The intra-/inter-class correlation coefficient and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method were used for radiomics feature selection. The clinical features selected were patient age and nodule size. The overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under curve (AUC) value were calculated for comparison of diagnostic efficacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All the CNN models combined with radiomics and clinical data were significantly superior to CNN models only. The Desenet121+radiomics+clinical data model showed the best classification performance with an accuracy of 86.80%, sensitivity of 87.60%, specificity of 86.20% and AUC of 0.915, which was better than that of the CNN model only, which had an accuracy of 85.23%, sensitivity of 85.48%, specificity of 85.02%, and AUC of 0.870. In comparison, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value for breast radiologists were 72.08%, 100%, 43.30%, and 0.716, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A combination of the CNN-radiomics model and clinical data could be a helpful auxiliary diagnostic tool for distinguishing between SA and BC.</p>","PeriodicalId":10425,"journal":{"name":"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation","volume":"84 2","pages":"153-163"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-221608","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of our study is to present a method combining radiomics with deep learning and clinical data for improved differential diagnosis of sclerosing adenosis (SA)and breast cancer (BC).

Methods: A total of 97 patients with SA and 100 patients with BC were included in this study. The best model for classification was selected from among four different convolutional neural network (CNN) models, including Vgg16, Resnet18, Resnet50, and Desenet121. The intra-/inter-class correlation coefficient and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method were used for radiomics feature selection. The clinical features selected were patient age and nodule size. The overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under curve (AUC) value were calculated for comparison of diagnostic efficacy.

Results: All the CNN models combined with radiomics and clinical data were significantly superior to CNN models only. The Desenet121+radiomics+clinical data model showed the best classification performance with an accuracy of 86.80%, sensitivity of 87.60%, specificity of 86.20% and AUC of 0.915, which was better than that of the CNN model only, which had an accuracy of 85.23%, sensitivity of 85.48%, specificity of 85.02%, and AUC of 0.870. In comparison, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value for breast radiologists were 72.08%, 100%, 43.30%, and 0.716, respectively.

Conclusions: A combination of the CNN-radiomics model and clinical data could be a helpful auxiliary diagnostic tool for distinguishing between SA and BC.

超声影像的深度学习放射组学鉴别硬化性腺病与乳腺癌。
目的:本研究的目的是提出一种将放射组学与深度学习和临床数据相结合的方法,以改进硬化性腺病(SA)和乳腺癌(BC)的鉴别诊断。方法:共纳入97例SA患者和100例BC患者。从Vgg16、Resnet18、Resnet50和Desenet121四种不同的卷积神经网络(CNN)模型中选出最佳的分类模型。采用类内/类间相关系数、最小绝对收缩和选择算子方法进行放射组学特征选择。选择的临床特征是患者的年龄和结节大小。计算总体准确率、敏感性、特异性、约登指数、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、曲线下面积(AUC)值,比较诊断效果。结果:所有CNN模型结合放射组学和临床资料均明显优于单独的CNN模型。Desenet121+放射组学+临床数据模型的分类效果最好,准确率为86.80%,灵敏度为87.60%,特异性为86.20%,AUC为0.915,优于单纯CNN模型的准确率85.23%,灵敏度85.48%,特异性85.02%,AUC为0.870。乳腺放射科医师的诊断准确率为72.08%,敏感性为100%,特异性为43.30%,AUC值为0.716。结论:结合cnn -放射组学模型和临床数据可以作为区分SA和BC的辅助诊断工具。
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
4.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, a peer-reviewed international scientific journal, serves as an aid to understanding the flow properties of blood and the relationship to normal and abnormal physiology. The rapidly expanding science of hemorheology concerns blood, its components and the blood vessels with which blood interacts. It includes perihemorheology, i.e., the rheology of fluid and structures in the perivascular and interstitial spaces as well as the lymphatic system. The clinical aspects include pathogenesis, symptomatology and diagnostic methods, and the fields of prophylaxis and therapy in all branches of medicine and surgery, pharmacology and drug research. The endeavour of the Editors-in-Chief and publishers of Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation is to bring together contributions from those working in various fields related to blood flow all over the world. The editors of Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation are from those countries in Europe, Asia, Australia and America where appreciable work in clinical hemorheology and microcirculation is being carried out. Each editor takes responsibility to decide on the acceptance of a manuscript. He is required to have the manuscript appraised by two referees and may be one of them himself. The executive editorial office, to which the manuscripts have been submitted, is responsible for rapid handling of the reviewing process. Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation accepts original papers, brief communications, mini-reports and letters to the Editors-in-Chief. Review articles, providing general views and new insights into related subjects, are regularly invited by the Editors-in-Chief. Proceedings of international and national conferences on clinical hemorheology (in original form or as abstracts) complete the range of editorial features.
×
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