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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Dana, Mikela Vilmun, Bolette, Frederik Carlsen, Jonathan, Albrecht-Beste, Elisabeth, Ammitzbøl Lauridsen, Carsten, Bachmann Nielsen, Michael, Lindskov Hansen, Kristoffer
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