Cargando…
Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models?
As artificial intelligence for image segmentation becomes increasingly available, the question whether these solutions generalize between different hospitals and geographies arises. The present study addresses this question by comparing multi-institutional models to site-specific models. Using CT da...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7241256/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32477941 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00675 |
_version_ | 1783537037739032576 |
---|---|
author | Schreier, Jan Attanasi, Francesca Laaksonen, Hannu |
author_facet | Schreier, Jan Attanasi, Francesca Laaksonen, Hannu |
author_sort | Schreier, Jan |
collection | PubMed |
description | As artificial intelligence for image segmentation becomes increasingly available, the question whether these solutions generalize between different hospitals and geographies arises. The present study addresses this question by comparing multi-institutional models to site-specific models. Using CT data sets from four clinics for organs-at-risk of the female breast, female pelvis and male pelvis, we differentiate between the effect from population differences and differences in clinical practice. Our study, thus, provides guidelines to hospitals, in which case the training of a custom, hospital-specific deep neural network is to be advised and when a network provided by a third-party can be used. The results show that for the organs of the female pelvis and the heart the segmentation quality is influenced solely on bases of the training set size, while the patient population variability affects the female breast segmentation quality above the effect of the training set size. In the comparison of site-specific contours on the male pelvis, we see that for a sufficiently large data set size, a custom, hospital-specific model outperforms a multi-institutional one on some of the organs. However, for small hospital-specific data sets a multi-institutional model provides the better segmentation quality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7241256 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72412562020-05-29 Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models? Schreier, Jan Attanasi, Francesca Laaksonen, Hannu Front Oncol Oncology As artificial intelligence for image segmentation becomes increasingly available, the question whether these solutions generalize between different hospitals and geographies arises. The present study addresses this question by comparing multi-institutional models to site-specific models. Using CT data sets from four clinics for organs-at-risk of the female breast, female pelvis and male pelvis, we differentiate between the effect from population differences and differences in clinical practice. Our study, thus, provides guidelines to hospitals, in which case the training of a custom, hospital-specific deep neural network is to be advised and when a network provided by a third-party can be used. The results show that for the organs of the female pelvis and the heart the segmentation quality is influenced solely on bases of the training set size, while the patient population variability affects the female breast segmentation quality above the effect of the training set size. In the comparison of site-specific contours on the male pelvis, we see that for a sufficiently large data set size, a custom, hospital-specific model outperforms a multi-institutional one on some of the organs. However, for small hospital-specific data sets a multi-institutional model provides the better segmentation quality. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-05-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7241256/ /pubmed/32477941 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00675 Text en Copyright © 2020 Schreier, Attanasi and Laaksonen. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Schreier, Jan Attanasi, Francesca Laaksonen, Hannu Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models? |
title | Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models? |
title_full | Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models? |
title_fullStr | Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models? |
title_full_unstemmed | Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models? |
title_short | Generalization vs. Specificity: In Which Cases Should a Clinic Train its Own Segmentation Models? |
title_sort | generalization vs. specificity: in which cases should a clinic train its own segmentation models? |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7241256/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32477941 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00675 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schreierjan generalizationvsspecificityinwhichcasesshouldaclinictrainitsownsegmentationmodels AT attanasifrancesca generalizationvsspecificityinwhichcasesshouldaclinictrainitsownsegmentationmodels AT laaksonenhannu generalizationvsspecificityinwhichcasesshouldaclinictrainitsownsegmentationmodels |