Cargando…

A sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation

PURPOSE: Deep‐learning‐based segmentation models implicitly learn to predict the presence of a structure based on its overall prominence in the training dataset. This phenomenon is observed and accounted for in deep‐learning applications such as natural language processing but is often neglected in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bice, Noah, Kirby, Neil, Li, Ruiqi, Nguyen, Dan, Bahr, Tyler, Kabat, Christopher, Myers, Pamela, Papanikolaou, Niko, Fakhreddine, Mohamad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8364283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34231950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13331
_version_ 1783738501154471936
author Bice, Noah
Kirby, Neil
Li, Ruiqi
Nguyen, Dan
Bahr, Tyler
Kabat, Christopher
Myers, Pamela
Papanikolaou, Niko
Fakhreddine, Mohamad
author_facet Bice, Noah
Kirby, Neil
Li, Ruiqi
Nguyen, Dan
Bahr, Tyler
Kabat, Christopher
Myers, Pamela
Papanikolaou, Niko
Fakhreddine, Mohamad
author_sort Bice, Noah
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Deep‐learning‐based segmentation models implicitly learn to predict the presence of a structure based on its overall prominence in the training dataset. This phenomenon is observed and accounted for in deep‐learning applications such as natural language processing but is often neglected in segmentation literature. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the significance of class imbalance in deep‐learning‐based segmentation and recommend tuning of the neural network optimization objective. METHODS: An architecture and training procedure were chosen to represent common models in anatomical segmentation. A family of 5‐block 2D U‐Nets were independently trained to segment 10 structures from the Cancer Imaging Archive's Head‐Neck‐Radiomics‐HN1 dataset. We identify the optimal threshold for our models according to their Dice score on the validation datasets and consider perturbations about the optimum. A measure of structure prominence in segmentation datasets is defined, and its impact on the optimal threshold is analyzed. Finally, we consider the use of a 2D Dice objective in addition to binary cross entropy. RESULTS: We observe significant decreases in perceived model performance with conventional 0.5‐thresholding. Perturbations of as little as ±0.05 about the optimum threshold induce a median reduction in Dice score of 11.8% for our models. There is statistical evidence to suggest a weak correlation between training dataset prominence and optimal threshold (Pearson [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]). We find that network optimization with respect to the 2D Dice score itself significantly reduces variability due to thresholding but does not unequivocally create the best segmentation models when assessed with distance‐based segmentation metrics. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that those practicing deep‐learning‐based contouring should consider their postprocessing procedures as a potential avenue for improved performance. For intensity‐based postprocessing, we recommend a mixed objective function consisting of the traditional binary cross entropy along with the 2D Dice score.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8364283
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83642832021-08-23 A sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation Bice, Noah Kirby, Neil Li, Ruiqi Nguyen, Dan Bahr, Tyler Kabat, Christopher Myers, Pamela Papanikolaou, Niko Fakhreddine, Mohamad J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: Deep‐learning‐based segmentation models implicitly learn to predict the presence of a structure based on its overall prominence in the training dataset. This phenomenon is observed and accounted for in deep‐learning applications such as natural language processing but is often neglected in segmentation literature. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the significance of class imbalance in deep‐learning‐based segmentation and recommend tuning of the neural network optimization objective. METHODS: An architecture and training procedure were chosen to represent common models in anatomical segmentation. A family of 5‐block 2D U‐Nets were independently trained to segment 10 structures from the Cancer Imaging Archive's Head‐Neck‐Radiomics‐HN1 dataset. We identify the optimal threshold for our models according to their Dice score on the validation datasets and consider perturbations about the optimum. A measure of structure prominence in segmentation datasets is defined, and its impact on the optimal threshold is analyzed. Finally, we consider the use of a 2D Dice objective in addition to binary cross entropy. RESULTS: We observe significant decreases in perceived model performance with conventional 0.5‐thresholding. Perturbations of as little as ±0.05 about the optimum threshold induce a median reduction in Dice score of 11.8% for our models. There is statistical evidence to suggest a weak correlation between training dataset prominence and optimal threshold (Pearson [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]). We find that network optimization with respect to the 2D Dice score itself significantly reduces variability due to thresholding but does not unequivocally create the best segmentation models when assessed with distance‐based segmentation metrics. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that those practicing deep‐learning‐based contouring should consider their postprocessing procedures as a potential avenue for improved performance. For intensity‐based postprocessing, we recommend a mixed objective function consisting of the traditional binary cross entropy along with the 2D Dice score. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8364283/ /pubmed/34231950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13331 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Bice, Noah
Kirby, Neil
Li, Ruiqi
Nguyen, Dan
Bahr, Tyler
Kabat, Christopher
Myers, Pamela
Papanikolaou, Niko
Fakhreddine, Mohamad
A sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation
title A sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation
title_full A sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation
title_fullStr A sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation
title_full_unstemmed A sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation
title_short A sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation
title_sort sensitivity analysis of probability maps in deep‐learning‐based anatomical segmentation
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8364283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34231950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13331
work_keys_str_mv AT bicenoah asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT kirbyneil asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT liruiqi asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT nguyendan asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT bahrtyler asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT kabatchristopher asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT myerspamela asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT papanikolaouniko asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT fakhreddinemohamad asensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT bicenoah sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT kirbyneil sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT liruiqi sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT nguyendan sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT bahrtyler sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT kabatchristopher sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT myerspamela sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT papanikolaouniko sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation
AT fakhreddinemohamad sensitivityanalysisofprobabilitymapsindeeplearningbasedanatomicalsegmentation