深度学习自动分割中的置信度估计,用于放射治疗的磁共振成像中的脑部风险器官

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Nouf M. Alzahrani, Ann M. Henry, Bashar M. Al‐Qaisieh, Louise J. Murray, Michael G. Nix
{"title":"深度学习自动分割中的置信度估计,用于放射治疗的磁共振成像中的脑部风险器官","authors":"Nouf M. Alzahrani, Ann M. Henry, Bashar M. Al‐Qaisieh, Louise J. Murray, Michael G. Nix","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeWe have built a novel AI‐driven QA method called AutoConfidence (ACo), to estimate segmentation confidence on a per‐voxel basis without gold standard segmentations, enabling robust, efficient review of automated segmentation (AS). We have demonstrated this method in brain OAR AS on MRI, using internal and external (third‐party) AS models.MethodsThirty‐two retrospectives, MRI planned, glioma cases were randomly selected from a local clinical cohort for ACo training. A generator was trained adversarialy to produce internal autosegmentations (IAS) with a discriminator to estimate voxel‐wise IAS uncertainty, given the input MRI. Confidence maps for each proposed segmentation were produced for operator use in AS editing and were compared with “difference to gold‐standard” error maps. Nine cases were used for testing ACo performance on IAS and validation with two external deep learning segmentation model predictions [external model with low‐quality AS (EM‐LQ) and external model with high‐quality AS (EM‐HQ)]. Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC), false‐positive rate (FPR), false‐negative rate (FNR), and visual assessment were used for evaluation. Edge removal and geometric distance corrections were applied to achieve more useful and clinically relevant confidence maps and performance metrics.ResultsACo showed generally excellent performance on both internal and external segmentations, across all OARs (except lenses). MCC was higher on IAS and low‐quality external segmentations (EM‐LQ) than high‐quality ones (EM‐HQ). On IAS and EM‐LQ, average MCC (excluding lenses) varied from 0.6 to 0.9, while average FPR and FNR were ≤0.13 and ≤0.21, respectively. For EM‐HQ, average MCC varied from 0.4 to 0.8, while average FPR and FNR were ≤0.37 and ≤0.22, respectively.ConclusionACo was a reliable predictor of uncertainty and errors on AS generated both internally and externally, demonstrating its potential as an independent, reference‐free QA tool, which could help operators deliver robust, efficient autosegmentation in the radiotherapy clinic.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated confidence estimation in deep learning auto‐segmentation for brain organs at risk on MRI for radiotherapy\",\"authors\":\"Nouf M. Alzahrani, Ann M. Henry, Bashar M. Al‐Qaisieh, Louise J. Murray, Michael G. Nix\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.14513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeWe have built a novel AI‐driven QA method called AutoConfidence (ACo), to estimate segmentation confidence on a per‐voxel basis without gold standard segmentations, enabling robust, efficient review of automated segmentation (AS). We have demonstrated this method in brain OAR AS on MRI, using internal and external (third‐party) AS models.MethodsThirty‐two retrospectives, MRI planned, glioma cases were randomly selected from a local clinical cohort for ACo training. A generator was trained adversarialy to produce internal autosegmentations (IAS) with a discriminator to estimate voxel‐wise IAS uncertainty, given the input MRI. Confidence maps for each proposed segmentation were produced for operator use in AS editing and were compared with “difference to gold‐standard” error maps. Nine cases were used for testing ACo performance on IAS and validation with two external deep learning segmentation model predictions [external model with low‐quality AS (EM‐LQ) and external model with high‐quality AS (EM‐HQ)]. Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC), false‐positive rate (FPR), false‐negative rate (FNR), and visual assessment were used for evaluation. Edge removal and geometric distance corrections were applied to achieve more useful and clinically relevant confidence maps and performance metrics.ResultsACo showed generally excellent performance on both internal and external segmentations, across all OARs (except lenses). MCC was higher on IAS and low‐quality external segmentations (EM‐LQ) than high‐quality ones (EM‐HQ). On IAS and EM‐LQ, average MCC (excluding lenses) varied from 0.6 to 0.9, while average FPR and FNR were ≤0.13 and ≤0.21, respectively. For EM‐HQ, average MCC varied from 0.4 to 0.8, while average FPR and FNR were ≤0.37 and ≤0.22, respectively.ConclusionACo was a reliable predictor of uncertainty and errors on AS generated both internally and externally, demonstrating its potential as an independent, reference‐free QA tool, which could help operators deliver robust, efficient autosegmentation in the radiotherapy clinic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14513\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的我们建立了一种名为 "自动置信度"(AutoConfidence,ACo)的新型人工智能驱动质量保证方法,在没有金标准分割的情况下按象素估算分割置信度,从而实现稳健、高效的自动分割(AS)审查。我们使用内部和外部(第三方)AS 模型,在 MRI 上的脑 OAR AS 中演示了这种方法。方法从本地临床队列中随机选取 32 例回顾性 MRI 计划胶质瘤病例进行 ACo 训练。对生成器进行对抗性训练,以生成内部自动分割(IAS),并根据输入的 MRI,使用判别器估算体素方面的 IAS 不确定性。为每个建议的分割生成置信度图,供操作员在 AS 编辑中使用,并与 "与黄金标准的差异 "误差图进行比较。九个病例用于测试 ACo 在 IAS 上的性能,并与两个外部深度学习分割模型预测[低质量 AS 外部模型(EM-LQ)和高质量 AS 外部模型(EM-HQ)]进行验证。评估采用了马修相关系数(MCC)、假阳性率(FPR)、假阴性率(FNR)和视觉评估。结果ACo在所有OAR(镜片除外)的内部和外部分割中都表现出了卓越的性能。MCC在IAS和低质量外部分割(EM-LQ)上高于高质量外部分割(EM-HQ)。在 IAS 和 EM-LQ 上,平均 MCC(不包括镜片)从 0.6 到 0.9 不等,而平均 FPR 和 FNR 分别≤0.13 和≤0.21。结论ACo可以可靠地预测内部和外部生成的AS的不确定性和误差,证明了其作为独立的、无参照物的质量保证工具的潜力,可以帮助操作人员在放射治疗临床中提供稳健、高效的自动分割。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Automated confidence estimation in deep learning auto‐segmentation for brain organs at risk on MRI for radiotherapy
PurposeWe have built a novel AI‐driven QA method called AutoConfidence (ACo), to estimate segmentation confidence on a per‐voxel basis without gold standard segmentations, enabling robust, efficient review of automated segmentation (AS). We have demonstrated this method in brain OAR AS on MRI, using internal and external (third‐party) AS models.MethodsThirty‐two retrospectives, MRI planned, glioma cases were randomly selected from a local clinical cohort for ACo training. A generator was trained adversarialy to produce internal autosegmentations (IAS) with a discriminator to estimate voxel‐wise IAS uncertainty, given the input MRI. Confidence maps for each proposed segmentation were produced for operator use in AS editing and were compared with “difference to gold‐standard” error maps. Nine cases were used for testing ACo performance on IAS and validation with two external deep learning segmentation model predictions [external model with low‐quality AS (EM‐LQ) and external model with high‐quality AS (EM‐HQ)]. Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC), false‐positive rate (FPR), false‐negative rate (FNR), and visual assessment were used for evaluation. Edge removal and geometric distance corrections were applied to achieve more useful and clinically relevant confidence maps and performance metrics.ResultsACo showed generally excellent performance on both internal and external segmentations, across all OARs (except lenses). MCC was higher on IAS and low‐quality external segmentations (EM‐LQ) than high‐quality ones (EM‐HQ). On IAS and EM‐LQ, average MCC (excluding lenses) varied from 0.6 to 0.9, while average FPR and FNR were ≤0.13 and ≤0.21, respectively. For EM‐HQ, average MCC varied from 0.4 to 0.8, while average FPR and FNR were ≤0.37 and ≤0.22, respectively.ConclusionACo was a reliable predictor of uncertainty and errors on AS generated both internally and externally, demonstrating its potential as an independent, reference‐free QA tool, which could help operators deliver robust, efficient autosegmentation in the radiotherapy clinic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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