猪肺图像的评分:计算机视觉系统与人类评估者的比较。

IF 3.7 1区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Robert Valeris-Chacin, Beatriz Garcia-Morante, Marina Sibila, Albert Canturri, Isaac Ballarà Rodriguez, Ignacio Bernal Orozco, Ramon Jordà Casadevall, Pedro Muñoz, Maria Pieters
{"title":"猪肺图像的评分:计算机视觉系统与人类评估者的比较。","authors":"Robert Valeris-Chacin, Beatriz Garcia-Morante, Marina Sibila, Albert Canturri, Isaac Ballarà Rodriguez, Ignacio Bernal Orozco, Ramon Jordà Casadevall, Pedro Muñoz, Maria Pieters","doi":"10.1186/s13567-024-01432-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cranioventral pulmonary consolidation (CVPC) is a common lesion observed in the lungs of slaughtered pigs, often associated with Mycoplasma (M.) hyopneumoniae infection. There is a need to implement simple, fast, and valid CVPC scoring methods. Therefore, this study aimed to compare CVPC scores provided by a computer vision system (CVS; AI DIAGNOS) from lung images obtained at slaughter, with scores assigned by human evaluators. In addition, intra- and inter-evaluator variability were assessed and compared to intra-CVS variability. A total of 1050 dorsal view images of swine lungs were analyzed. Total lung lesion score, lesion score per lung lobe, and percentage of affected lung area were employed as outcomes for the evaluation. The CVS showed moderate accuracy (62-71%) in discriminating between non-lesioned and lesioned lung lobes in all but the diaphragmatic lobes. A low multiclass classification accuracy at the lung lobe level (24-36%) was observed. A moderate to high inter-evaluator variability was noticed depending on the lung lobe, as shown by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC: 0.29-0.6). The intra-evaluator variability was low and similar among the different outcomes and lung lobes, although the observed ICC slightly differed among evaluators. In contrast, the CVS scoring was identical per lobe per image. The results of this study suggest that the CVS AI DIAGNOS could be used as an alternative to the manual scoring of CVPC during slaughter inspections due to its accuracy in binary classification and its perfect consistency in the scoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":23658,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Research","volume":"56 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11731141/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoring of swine lung images: a comparison between a computer vision system and human evaluators.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Valeris-Chacin, Beatriz Garcia-Morante, Marina Sibila, Albert Canturri, Isaac Ballarà Rodriguez, Ignacio Bernal Orozco, Ramon Jordà Casadevall, Pedro Muñoz, Maria Pieters\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13567-024-01432-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cranioventral pulmonary consolidation (CVPC) is a common lesion observed in the lungs of slaughtered pigs, often associated with Mycoplasma (M.) hyopneumoniae infection. There is a need to implement simple, fast, and valid CVPC scoring methods. Therefore, this study aimed to compare CVPC scores provided by a computer vision system (CVS; AI DIAGNOS) from lung images obtained at slaughter, with scores assigned by human evaluators. In addition, intra- and inter-evaluator variability were assessed and compared to intra-CVS variability. A total of 1050 dorsal view images of swine lungs were analyzed. Total lung lesion score, lesion score per lung lobe, and percentage of affected lung area were employed as outcomes for the evaluation. The CVS showed moderate accuracy (62-71%) in discriminating between non-lesioned and lesioned lung lobes in all but the diaphragmatic lobes. A low multiclass classification accuracy at the lung lobe level (24-36%) was observed. A moderate to high inter-evaluator variability was noticed depending on the lung lobe, as shown by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC: 0.29-0.6). The intra-evaluator variability was low and similar among the different outcomes and lung lobes, although the observed ICC slightly differed among evaluators. In contrast, the CVS scoring was identical per lobe per image. The results of this study suggest that the CVS AI DIAGNOS could be used as an alternative to the manual scoring of CVPC during slaughter inspections due to its accuracy in binary classification and its perfect consistency in the scoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23658,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary Research\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11731141/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01432-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01432-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

颅腹侧肺实变(CVPC)是一种常见于屠宰猪肺部的病变,通常与肺炎支原体感染有关。需要实现简单、快速、有效的CVPC评分方法。因此,本研究旨在比较计算机视觉系统(CVS;人工智能诊断)从屠宰时获得的肺部图像中获得,并由人类评估人员分配分数。此外,评估者内部和评估者之间的变异性进行了评估,并与cvs内部变异性进行了比较。本文对1050张猪肺背位影像进行了分析。以肺病变总评分、每肺叶病变评分和受影响肺面积百分比作为评价结果。CVS在除膈叶外的所有肺叶中对非病变肺叶和病变肺叶的区分准确度为62-71%。肺叶水平的多分类准确率较低(24-36%)。正如类内相关系数(ICC: 0.29-0.6)所示,根据肺叶的不同,评估者之间存在中度至高度的变异性。在不同的结果和肺叶中,评估者内部的可变性很低且相似,尽管观察到的ICC在评估者之间略有不同。相比之下,每张图像的每个叶的CVS评分是相同的。本研究结果表明,CVS AI diagnostics二元分类准确率高,评分一致性好,可作为屠宰检验中CVPC人工评分的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scoring of swine lung images: a comparison between a computer vision system and human evaluators.

Cranioventral pulmonary consolidation (CVPC) is a common lesion observed in the lungs of slaughtered pigs, often associated with Mycoplasma (M.) hyopneumoniae infection. There is a need to implement simple, fast, and valid CVPC scoring methods. Therefore, this study aimed to compare CVPC scores provided by a computer vision system (CVS; AI DIAGNOS) from lung images obtained at slaughter, with scores assigned by human evaluators. In addition, intra- and inter-evaluator variability were assessed and compared to intra-CVS variability. A total of 1050 dorsal view images of swine lungs were analyzed. Total lung lesion score, lesion score per lung lobe, and percentage of affected lung area were employed as outcomes for the evaluation. The CVS showed moderate accuracy (62-71%) in discriminating between non-lesioned and lesioned lung lobes in all but the diaphragmatic lobes. A low multiclass classification accuracy at the lung lobe level (24-36%) was observed. A moderate to high inter-evaluator variability was noticed depending on the lung lobe, as shown by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC: 0.29-0.6). The intra-evaluator variability was low and similar among the different outcomes and lung lobes, although the observed ICC slightly differed among evaluators. In contrast, the CVS scoring was identical per lobe per image. The results of this study suggest that the CVS AI DIAGNOS could be used as an alternative to the manual scoring of CVPC during slaughter inspections due to its accuracy in binary classification and its perfect consistency in the scoring.

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
Veterinary Research
Veterinary Research 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
4.50%
发文量
92
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Veterinary Research is an open access journal that publishes high quality and novel research and review articles focusing on all aspects of infectious diseases and host-pathogen interaction in animals.
×
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