4.6 Article

Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) of Pulmonary Nodule of Thoracic CT Image Using Transfer Learning

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 995-1007

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-019-00204-4

关键词

Pulmonary nodule; Classification; Thoracic CT; Transfer learning; CNN

资金

  1. Nature Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2014FM006]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [81671703]
  3. Focus on Research and Development Plan in Shandong Province [2015GSF118026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) has already been widely used in medical image processing. We recently make another trial to implement convolutional neural network (CNN) on the classification of pulmonary nodules of thoracic CT images. The biggest challenge in medical image classification with the help of CNN is the difficulty of acquiring enough samples, and overfitting is a common problem when there are not enough images for training. Transfer learning has been verified as reasonable in dealing with such problems with an acceptable loss value. We use the classic LeNet-5 model to classify pulmonary nodules of thoracic CT images, including benign and malignant pulmonary nodules, and different malignancies of the malignant nodules. The CT images are obtained from Lung Image Database Consortium and Image Database Resource Initiative (LIDC-IDRI) where both pulmonary nodule scanning and nodule annotations are available. These images are labeled and stored in a medical images knowledge base (KB), which is designed and implemented in our previous work. We implement the 10-folder cross validation (CV) to testify the robustness of the classification model we trained. The result demonstrates that the transfer learning of the LeNet-5 is good for classifying pulmonary nodules of thoracic CT images, and the average values of Top-1 accuracy are 97.041% and 96.685% respectively. We believe that our work is beneficial and has potential for practical diagnosis of lung nodules.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据