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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |