Using Deep Learning to Automate Eosinophil Counting in Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Histopathological Images
Reigle, J.; Lopez Nunez, O.; Drysdale, E.; Abuquteish, D.; Liu, X.; Putra, J.; Erdman, L.; Griffiths, A.; Prasath, S.; Siddiqui, I.; Dhaliwal, J.
Show abstract
BackgroundAccurate identification of inflammatory cells from mucosal histopathology images is important in diagnosing ulcerative colitis. The identification of eosinophils in the colonic mucosa has been associated with disease course. Cell counting is not only time-consuming but can also be subjective to human biases. In this study we developed an automatic eosinophilic cell counting tool from mucosal histopathology images, using deep learning. MethodFour pediatric IBD pathologists from two North American pediatric hospitals annotated 530 crops from 143 standard-of-care hematoxylin and eosin (H & E) rectal mucosal biopsies. A 305/75 split was used for training/validation to develop and optimize a U-Net based deep learning model, and 150 crops were used as a test set. The U-Net model was then compared to SAU-Net, a state-of-the-art U-Net variant. We undertook post-processing steps, namely, (1) the pixel-level probability threshold, (2) the minimum number of clustered pixels to designate a cell, and (3) the connectivity. Experiments were run to optimize model parameters using AUROC and cross-entropy loss as the performance metrics. ResultsThe F1-score was 0.86 (95%CI:0.79-0.91) (Precision: 0.77 (95%CI:0.70-0.83), Recall: 0.96 (95%CI:0.93-0.99)) to identify eosinophils as compared to an F1-score of 0.2 (95%CI:0.13-0.26) for SAU-Net (Precision: 0.38 (95%CI:0.31-0.46), Recall: 0.13 (95%CI:0.08-0.19)). The inter-rater reliability was 0.96 (95%CI:0.93-0.97). The correlation between two pathologists and the algorithm was 0.89 (95%CI:0.82-0.94) and 0.88 (95%CI:0.80-0.94) respectively. ConclusionOur results indicate that deep learning-based automated eosinophilic cell counting can obtain a robust level of accuracy with a high degree of concordance with manual expert annotations.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Uncovering the effects of model initialization on deep model generalization: A study with adult and pediatric chest X-ray images 94%
- Artificial Intelligence Model for Analyzing Colonic Endoscopy Images to Detect Changes Associated with Irritable Bowel Syndrome 94%
- Assessing generalizability of an AI-based visual test for cervical cancer screening 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Deep learning models for poorly differentiated colorectal adenocarcinoma classification in whole slide images using transfer learning 93%
- Demarcation line determination for diagnosis of gastric cancer disease range using unsupervised machine learning in magnifying narrow-band imaging 93%
- Deep neural frameworks improve the accuracy of general practitioners in the classification of pigmented skin lesions 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The mathematics of erythema: Development of machine learning models for artificial intelligence assisted measurement and severity scoring of radiation induced dermatitis 95%
- Whole slide image representation in bone marrow cytology 95%
- AI-MET: A Deep Learning-based Clinical Decision Support System for Distinguishing Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children from Endemic Typhus 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.