Back

The effect of depth context in the segmentation of the colon in MRI volumes

Benson, E.; Rier, L.; Millican, I.; Pritchard, S. E.; Costigan, C.; Pound, M. P.; Major, G.; French, A. P.; Gowland, P. A.; Pridmore, T. P.; Hoad, C. L.

2020-03-08 gastroenterology
10.1101/2020.03.06.20027722 medRxiv
Show abstract

Colonic volume content measurements can provide important information about the digestive tract physiology. Development of automated analyses will accelerate the translation of these measurements into clinical practice. In this paper, we test the effect of data dimension on the success of deep learning approaches to segment colons from MRI data. Deep learning network models were developed which used either 2D slices, complete 3D volumes and 2.5D partial volumes. These represent variations in the trade-off between the size and complexity of a network and its training regime, and the limitation of only being able to use a small section of the data at a time: full 3D networks, for example, have more image context available for decision making but require more powerful hardware to implement. For the datasets utilised here, 3D data was found to outperform 2.5D data, which in turn performed better than 2D datasets. The maximum Dice scores achieved by the networks were 0.898, 0.834 and 0.794 respectively. We also considered the effect of ablating varying amounts of data on the ability of the networks to label images correctly. We achieve dice scores of 0.829, 0.827 and 0.389 for 3D single slices ablation, 3D multi-slice ablation and 2.5D middle slice ablation. In addition, we examined another practical consideration of deep learning, that of how well a network performs on data from another acquisition device. Networks trained on images from a Philips Achieva MRI system yielded Dice scores of up to 0.77 in the 3D case when tested on images captured from a GE Medical Systems HDxt (both 1.5 Tesla) without any retraining. We also considered the effect of single versus multimodal MRI data showing that single modality dice scores can be boosted from 0.825 to 0.898 when adding an extra modality.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.9%
2
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.7%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 9%
8.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
5
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
6
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
8
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
9
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
10
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
12
Journal of Biophotonics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
13
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
14
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
15
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.8%
17
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
20
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
21
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
23
Expert Systems with Applications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%