Cargando…
The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review
The aim of this study was to systematically review the performance of deep learning technology in detecting and classifying pulmonary nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans that were not from the Lung Image Database Consortium and Image Database Resource Initiative (LIDC-IDRI) database. Furthermo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963966/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31795409 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9040207 |
_version_ | 1783488404033372160 |
---|---|
author | Li, Dana Mikela Vilmun, Bolette Frederik Carlsen, Jonathan Albrecht-Beste, Elisabeth Ammitzbøl Lauridsen, Carsten Bachmann Nielsen, Michael Lindskov Hansen, Kristoffer |
author_facet | Li, Dana Mikela Vilmun, Bolette Frederik Carlsen, Jonathan Albrecht-Beste, Elisabeth Ammitzbøl Lauridsen, Carsten Bachmann Nielsen, Michael Lindskov Hansen, Kristoffer |
author_sort | Li, Dana |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of this study was to systematically review the performance of deep learning technology in detecting and classifying pulmonary nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans that were not from the Lung Image Database Consortium and Image Database Resource Initiative (LIDC-IDRI) database. Furthermore, we explored the difference in performance when the deep learning technology was applied to test datasets different from the training datasets. Only peer-reviewed, original research articles utilizing deep learning technology were included in this study, and only results from testing on datasets other than the LIDC-IDRI were included. We searched a total of six databases: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), Scopus, and Web of Science. This resulted in 1782 studies after duplicates were removed, and a total of 26 studies were included in this systematic review. Three studies explored the performance of pulmonary nodule detection only, 16 studies explored the performance of pulmonary nodule classification only, and 7 studies had reports of both pulmonary nodule detection and classification. Three different deep learning architectures were mentioned amongst the included studies: convolutional neural network (CNN), massive training artificial neural network (MTANN), and deep stacked denoising autoencoder extreme learning machine (SDAE-ELM). The studies reached a classification accuracy between 68–99.6% and a detection accuracy between 80.6–94%. Performance of deep learning technology in studies using different test and training datasets was comparable to studies using same type of test and training datasets. In conclusion, deep learning was able to achieve high levels of accuracy, sensitivity, and/or specificity in detecting and/or classifying nodules when applied to pulmonary CT scans not from the LIDC-IDRI database. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6963966 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69639662020-01-27 The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review Li, Dana Mikela Vilmun, Bolette Frederik Carlsen, Jonathan Albrecht-Beste, Elisabeth Ammitzbøl Lauridsen, Carsten Bachmann Nielsen, Michael Lindskov Hansen, Kristoffer Diagnostics (Basel) Review The aim of this study was to systematically review the performance of deep learning technology in detecting and classifying pulmonary nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans that were not from the Lung Image Database Consortium and Image Database Resource Initiative (LIDC-IDRI) database. Furthermore, we explored the difference in performance when the deep learning technology was applied to test datasets different from the training datasets. Only peer-reviewed, original research articles utilizing deep learning technology were included in this study, and only results from testing on datasets other than the LIDC-IDRI were included. We searched a total of six databases: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), Scopus, and Web of Science. This resulted in 1782 studies after duplicates were removed, and a total of 26 studies were included in this systematic review. Three studies explored the performance of pulmonary nodule detection only, 16 studies explored the performance of pulmonary nodule classification only, and 7 studies had reports of both pulmonary nodule detection and classification. Three different deep learning architectures were mentioned amongst the included studies: convolutional neural network (CNN), massive training artificial neural network (MTANN), and deep stacked denoising autoencoder extreme learning machine (SDAE-ELM). The studies reached a classification accuracy between 68–99.6% and a detection accuracy between 80.6–94%. Performance of deep learning technology in studies using different test and training datasets was comparable to studies using same type of test and training datasets. In conclusion, deep learning was able to achieve high levels of accuracy, sensitivity, and/or specificity in detecting and/or classifying nodules when applied to pulmonary CT scans not from the LIDC-IDRI database. MDPI 2019-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6963966/ /pubmed/31795409 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9040207 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Li, Dana Mikela Vilmun, Bolette Frederik Carlsen, Jonathan Albrecht-Beste, Elisabeth Ammitzbøl Lauridsen, Carsten Bachmann Nielsen, Michael Lindskov Hansen, Kristoffer The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review |
title | The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review |
title_full | The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review |
title_short | The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | performance of deep learning algorithms on automatic pulmonary nodule detection and classification tested on different datasets that are not derived from lidc-idri: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963966/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31795409 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9040207 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lidana theperformanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT mikelavilmunbolette theperformanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT frederikcarlsenjonathan theperformanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT albrechtbesteelisabeth theperformanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT ammitzbøllauridsencarsten theperformanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT bachmannnielsenmichael theperformanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT lindskovhansenkristoffer theperformanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT lidana performanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT mikelavilmunbolette performanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT frederikcarlsenjonathan performanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT albrechtbesteelisabeth performanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT ammitzbøllauridsencarsten performanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT bachmannnielsenmichael performanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview AT lindskovhansenkristoffer performanceofdeeplearningalgorithmsonautomaticpulmonarynoduledetectionandclassificationtestedondifferentdatasetsthatarenotderivedfromlidcidriasystematicreview |