Cargando…
Development of machine learning model to predict pulmonary function with low‐dose CT‐derived parameter response mapping in a community‐based chest screening cohort
PURPOSE: To construct and evaluate the performance of a machine learning‐based low dose computed tomography (LDCT)‐derived parametric response mapping (PRM) model for predicting pulmonary function test (PFT) results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 615 subjects from a community‐based screening pop...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10647993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37782241 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14171 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: To construct and evaluate the performance of a machine learning‐based low dose computed tomography (LDCT)‐derived parametric response mapping (PRM) model for predicting pulmonary function test (PFT) results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 615 subjects from a community‐based screening population (40–74 years old) with PFT parameters, including the ratio of the first second forced expiratory volume to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC), the percentage of forced expiratory volume in the one second predicted (FEV1%), and registered inspiration‐to‐expiration chest CT scanning were enrolled retrospectively. Subjects were classified into a normal, high risk, and COPD group based on PFT. Data of 72 PRM‐derived quantitative parameters were collected, including volume and volume percentage of emphysema, functional‐small airways disease, and normal lung tissue. A machine‐learning with random forest regression model and a multilayer perceptron (MLP) model were constructed and tested on PFT prediction, which was followed by evaluation of classification performance based on the PFT predictions. RESULTS: The machine‐learning model based on PRM parameters showed better performance for predicting PFT than MLP, with a coefficient of determination (R(2)) of 0.749 and 0.792 for FEV1/FVC and FEV1%, respectively. The Mean Squared Errors (MSE) for FEV1/FVC and FEV1% are 0.0030 and 0.0097 for the random forest model, respectively. The Root Mean Squared Errors (RMSE) for FEV1/FVC and FEV1% are 0.055 and 0.098, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for differentiating between the normal group and high‐risk group were 34/40 (85%), 65/72 (90%), and 99/112 (88%), respectively. For differentiating between the non‐COPD group and COPD group, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 8/9 (89%), 112/112 (100%), 120/121 (99%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The machine learning‐based random forest model predicts PFT results in a community screening population based on PRM, and it identifies high risk COPD from normal populations with high sensitivity and reliably predicts of high‐risk COPD. |
---|