Testing the Ability of Convolutional Neural Networks to Learn Radiomic Features
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, ISSN: 0169-2607, Vol: 219, Page: 106750
2022
- 8Citations
- 29Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations8
- Citation Indexes8
- CrossRef4
- Captures29
- Readers29
- 29
Article Description
Radiomics and deep learning have emerged as two distinct approaches to medical image analysis. However, their relative expressive power remains largely unknown. Theoretically, hand-crafted radiomic features represent a mere subset of features that neural networks can approximate, thus making deep learning a more powerful approach. On the other hand, automated learning of hand-crafted features may require a prohibitively large number of training samples. Here we directly test the ability of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to learn and predict the intensity, shape, and texture properties of tumors as defined by standardized radiomic features. Conventional 2D and 3D CNN architectures with an increasing number of convolutional layers were trained to predict the values of 16 standardized radiomic features from real and synthetic PET images of tumors, and tested. In addition, several ImageNet-pretrained advanced networks were tested. A total of 4000 images were used for training, 500 for validation, and 500 for testing. Features quantifying size and intensity were predicted with high accuracy, while shape irregularity and heterogeneity features had very high prediction errors and generalized poorly. For example, mean normalized prediction error of tumor diameter with a 5-layer CNN was 4.23 ± 0.25, while the error for tumor sphericity was 15.64 ± 0.93. We additionally found that learning shape features required an order of magnitude more samples compared to intensity and size features. Our findings imply that CNNs trained to perform various image-based clinical tasks may generally under-utilize the shape and texture information that is more easily captured by radiomics. We speculate that to improve the CNN performance, shape and texture features can be computed explicitly and added as auxiliary variables to the networks, or supplied as synthetic inputs.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169260722001365; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106750; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85127367047&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35381490; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169260722001365; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106750
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know