Cargando…

Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem

BACKGROUND: Automated segmentation of anatomical structures is a crucial step in image analysis. For lung segmentation in computed tomography, a variety of approaches exists, involving sophisticated pipelines trained and validated on different datasets. However, the clinical applicability of these a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hofmanninger, Johannes, Prayer, Forian, Pan, Jeanny, Röhrich, Sebastian, Prosch, Helmut, Langs, Georg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7438418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32814998
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41747-020-00173-2
_version_ 1783572791809802240
author Hofmanninger, Johannes
Prayer, Forian
Pan, Jeanny
Röhrich, Sebastian
Prosch, Helmut
Langs, Georg
author_facet Hofmanninger, Johannes
Prayer, Forian
Pan, Jeanny
Röhrich, Sebastian
Prosch, Helmut
Langs, Georg
author_sort Hofmanninger, Johannes
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Automated segmentation of anatomical structures is a crucial step in image analysis. For lung segmentation in computed tomography, a variety of approaches exists, involving sophisticated pipelines trained and validated on different datasets. However, the clinical applicability of these approaches across diseases remains limited. METHODS: We compared four generic deep learning approaches trained on various datasets and two readily available lung segmentation algorithms. We performed evaluation on routine imaging data with more than six different disease patterns and three published data sets. RESULTS: Using different deep learning approaches, mean Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) on test datasets varied not over 0.02. When trained on a diverse routine dataset (n = 36), a standard approach (U-net) yields a higher DSC (0.97 ± 0.05) compared to training on public datasets such as the Lung Tissue Research Consortium (0.94 ± 0.13, p = 0.024) or Anatomy 3 (0.92 ± 0.15, p = 0.001). Trained on routine data (n = 231) covering multiple diseases, U-net compared to reference methods yields a DSC of 0.98 ± 0.03 versus 0.94 ± 0.12 (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and reliability of lung segmentation algorithms on demanding cases primarily relies on the diversity of the training data, highlighting the importance of data diversity compared to model choice. Efforts in developing new datasets and providing trained models to the public are critical. By releasing the trained model under General Public License 3.0, we aim to foster research on lung diseases by providing a readily available tool for segmentation of pathological lungs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7438418
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74384182020-08-24 Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem Hofmanninger, Johannes Prayer, Forian Pan, Jeanny Röhrich, Sebastian Prosch, Helmut Langs, Georg Eur Radiol Exp Original Article BACKGROUND: Automated segmentation of anatomical structures is a crucial step in image analysis. For lung segmentation in computed tomography, a variety of approaches exists, involving sophisticated pipelines trained and validated on different datasets. However, the clinical applicability of these approaches across diseases remains limited. METHODS: We compared four generic deep learning approaches trained on various datasets and two readily available lung segmentation algorithms. We performed evaluation on routine imaging data with more than six different disease patterns and three published data sets. RESULTS: Using different deep learning approaches, mean Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) on test datasets varied not over 0.02. When trained on a diverse routine dataset (n = 36), a standard approach (U-net) yields a higher DSC (0.97 ± 0.05) compared to training on public datasets such as the Lung Tissue Research Consortium (0.94 ± 0.13, p = 0.024) or Anatomy 3 (0.92 ± 0.15, p = 0.001). Trained on routine data (n = 231) covering multiple diseases, U-net compared to reference methods yields a DSC of 0.98 ± 0.03 versus 0.94 ± 0.12 (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and reliability of lung segmentation algorithms on demanding cases primarily relies on the diversity of the training data, highlighting the importance of data diversity compared to model choice. Efforts in developing new datasets and providing trained models to the public are critical. By releasing the trained model under General Public License 3.0, we aim to foster research on lung diseases by providing a readily available tool for segmentation of pathological lungs. Springer International Publishing 2020-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7438418/ /pubmed/32814998 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41747-020-00173-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Hofmanninger, Johannes
Prayer, Forian
Pan, Jeanny
Röhrich, Sebastian
Prosch, Helmut
Langs, Georg
Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem
title Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem
title_full Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem
title_fullStr Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem
title_full_unstemmed Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem
title_short Automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem
title_sort automatic lung segmentation in routine imaging is primarily a data diversity problem, not a methodology problem
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7438418/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32814998
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41747-020-00173-2
work_keys_str_mv AT hofmanningerjohannes automaticlungsegmentationinroutineimagingisprimarilyadatadiversityproblemnotamethodologyproblem
AT prayerforian automaticlungsegmentationinroutineimagingisprimarilyadatadiversityproblemnotamethodologyproblem
AT panjeanny automaticlungsegmentationinroutineimagingisprimarilyadatadiversityproblemnotamethodologyproblem
AT rohrichsebastian automaticlungsegmentationinroutineimagingisprimarilyadatadiversityproblemnotamethodologyproblem
AT proschhelmut automaticlungsegmentationinroutineimagingisprimarilyadatadiversityproblemnotamethodologyproblem
AT langsgeorg automaticlungsegmentationinroutineimagingisprimarilyadatadiversityproblemnotamethodologyproblem