4.7 Article

Classification of pleural effusions using deep learning visual models: contrastive-loss

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09550-w

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study utilized deep learning models and contrastive-loss approach to classify the etiology of pleural effusion. The contrastive-loss model demonstrated the highest accuracy and provided visualization of typical and atypical effusion results. These findings offer valuable insights for clinicians in etiology diagnosis.
Blood and fluid analysis is extensively used for classifying the etiology of pleural effusion. However, most studies focused on determining the presence of a disease. This study classified pleural effusion etiology employing deep learning models by applying contrastive-loss. Patients with pleural effusion who underwent thoracentesis between 2009 and 2019 at the Asan Medical Center were analyzed. Five different models for categorizing the etiology of pleural effusion were compared. The performance metrics were top-1 accuracy, top-2 accuracy, and micro-and weighted-AUROC. UMAP and t-SNE were used to visualize the contrastive-loss model's embedding space. Although the 5 models displayed similar performance in the validation set, the contrastive-loss model showed the highest accuracy in the extra-validation set. Additionally, the accuracy and micro-AUROC of the contrastive-loss model were 81.7% and 0.942 in the validation set, and 66.2% and 0.867 in the extra-validation set. Furthermore, the embedding space visualization in the contrastive-loss model exhibited typical and atypical effusion results by comparing the true and false positives of the rule-based criteria. Therefore, classifying the etiology of pleural effusion was achievable using the contrastive-loss model. Conclusively, visualization of the contrastive-loss model will provide clinicians with valuable insights for etiology diagnosis by differentiating between typical and atypical disease types.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available