Cargando…

Deep learning using multilayer perception improves the diagnostic acumen of spirometry: a single-centre Canadian study

RATIONALE: Spirometry and plethysmography are the gold standard pulmonary function tests (PFT) for diagnosis and management of lung disease. Due to the inaccessibility of plethysmography, spirometry is often used alone but this leads to missed or misdiagnoses as spirometry cannot identify restrictiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mac, Amanda, Xu, Tong, Wu, Joyce K Y, Belousova, Natalia, Kitazawa, Haruna, Vozoris, Nick, Rozenberg, Dmitry, Ryan, Clodagh M, Valaee, Shahrokh, Chow, Chung-Wai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9806081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36572484
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2022-001396
Descripción
Sumario:RATIONALE: Spirometry and plethysmography are the gold standard pulmonary function tests (PFT) for diagnosis and management of lung disease. Due to the inaccessibility of plethysmography, spirometry is often used alone but this leads to missed or misdiagnoses as spirometry cannot identify restrictive disease without plethysmography. We aimed to develop a deep learning model to improve interpretation of spirometry alone. METHODS: We built a multilayer perceptron model using full PFTs from 748 patients, interpreted according to international guidelines. Inputs included spirometry (forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, forced mid-expiratory flow(25–75)), plethysmography (total lung capacity, residual volume) and biometrics (sex, age, height). The model was developed with 2582 PFTs from 477 patients, randomly divided into training (80%), validation (10%) and test (10%) sets, and refined using 1245 previously unseen PFTs from 271 patients, split 50/50 as validation (136 patients) and test (135 patients) sets. Only one test per patient was used for each of 10 experiments conducted for each input combination. The final model was compared with interpretation of 82 spirometry tests by 6 trained pulmonologists and a decision tree. RESULTS: Accuracies from the first 477 patients were similar when inputs included biometrics+spirometry+plethysmography (95%±3%) vs biometrics+spirometry (90%±2%). Model refinement with the next 271 patients improved accuracies with biometrics+pirometry (95%±2%) but no change for biometrics+spirometry+plethysmography (95%±2%). The final model significantly outperformed (94.67%±2.63%, p<0.01 for both) interpretation of 82 spirometry tests by the decision tree (75.61%±0.00%) and pulmonologists (66.67%±14.63%). CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning improves the diagnostic acumen of spirometry and classifies lung physiology better than pulmonologists with accuracies comparable to full PFTs.