Cargando…

A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images

PURPOSE: To compare a deep learning model with a radiomics model in differentiating high-grade (LR-3, LR-4, LR-5) liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) liver tumors from low-grade (LR-1, LR-2) LI-RADS tumors based on the contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. METHODS: Magnetic reso...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Du, Lixin, Yuan, Jianpeng, Gan, Meng, Li, Zhigang, Wang, Pan, Hou, Zujun, Wang, Cong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9753333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36517762
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-022-00946-8
_version_ 1784850941450649600
author Du, Lixin
Yuan, Jianpeng
Gan, Meng
Li, Zhigang
Wang, Pan
Hou, Zujun
Wang, Cong
author_facet Du, Lixin
Yuan, Jianpeng
Gan, Meng
Li, Zhigang
Wang, Pan
Hou, Zujun
Wang, Cong
author_sort Du, Lixin
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare a deep learning model with a radiomics model in differentiating high-grade (LR-3, LR-4, LR-5) liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) liver tumors from low-grade (LR-1, LR-2) LI-RADS tumors based on the contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging scans of 361 suspected hepatocellular carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed. Lesion volume segmentation was manually performed by two radiologists, resulting in 426 lesions from the training set and 83 lesions from the test set. The radiomics model was constructed using a support vector machine (SVM) with pre-defined features, which was first selected using Chi-square test, followed by refining using binary least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. The deep learning model was established based on the DenseNet. Performance of the models was quantified by area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and F1-score. RESULTS: A set of 8 most informative features was selected from 1049 features to train the SVM classifier. The AUCs of the radiomics model were 0.857 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.816–0.888) for the training set and 0.879 (95% CI 0.779–0.935) for the test set. The deep learning method achieved AUCs of 0.838 (95% CI 0.799–0.871) for the training set and 0.717 (95% CI 0.601–0.814) for the test set. The performance difference between these two models was assessed by t-test, which showed the results in both training and test sets were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The deep learning based model can be trained end-to-end with little extra domain knowledge, while the radiomics model requires complex feature selection. However, this process makes the radiomics model achieve better performance in this study with smaller computational cost and more potential on model interpretability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9753333
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97533332022-12-16 A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images Du, Lixin Yuan, Jianpeng Gan, Meng Li, Zhigang Wang, Pan Hou, Zujun Wang, Cong BMC Med Imaging Research PURPOSE: To compare a deep learning model with a radiomics model in differentiating high-grade (LR-3, LR-4, LR-5) liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) liver tumors from low-grade (LR-1, LR-2) LI-RADS tumors based on the contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging scans of 361 suspected hepatocellular carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed. Lesion volume segmentation was manually performed by two radiologists, resulting in 426 lesions from the training set and 83 lesions from the test set. The radiomics model was constructed using a support vector machine (SVM) with pre-defined features, which was first selected using Chi-square test, followed by refining using binary least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. The deep learning model was established based on the DenseNet. Performance of the models was quantified by area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and F1-score. RESULTS: A set of 8 most informative features was selected from 1049 features to train the SVM classifier. The AUCs of the radiomics model were 0.857 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.816–0.888) for the training set and 0.879 (95% CI 0.779–0.935) for the test set. The deep learning method achieved AUCs of 0.838 (95% CI 0.799–0.871) for the training set and 0.717 (95% CI 0.601–0.814) for the test set. The performance difference between these two models was assessed by t-test, which showed the results in both training and test sets were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The deep learning based model can be trained end-to-end with little extra domain knowledge, while the radiomics model requires complex feature selection. However, this process makes the radiomics model achieve better performance in this study with smaller computational cost and more potential on model interpretability. BioMed Central 2022-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9753333/ /pubmed/36517762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-022-00946-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Du, Lixin
Yuan, Jianpeng
Gan, Meng
Li, Zhigang
Wang, Pan
Hou, Zujun
Wang, Cong
A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images
title A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images
title_full A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images
title_fullStr A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images
title_short A comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced MR images
title_sort comparative study between deep learning and radiomics models in grading liver tumors using hepatobiliary phase contrast-enhanced mr images
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9753333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36517762
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-022-00946-8
work_keys_str_mv AT dulixin acomparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT yuanjianpeng acomparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT ganmeng acomparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT lizhigang acomparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT wangpan acomparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT houzujun acomparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT wangcong acomparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT dulixin comparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT yuanjianpeng comparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT ganmeng comparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT lizhigang comparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT wangpan comparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT houzujun comparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages
AT wangcong comparativestudybetweendeeplearningandradiomicsmodelsingradinglivertumorsusinghepatobiliaryphasecontrastenhancedmrimages