4.6 Article

Automatic detection of blood content in capsule endoscopy images based on a deep convolutional neural network

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 35, 期 7, 页码 1196-1200

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14941

关键词

Blood content; Convolutional neural network; Deep learning; Suspected blood indicator; Wireless capsule endoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim Detecting blood content in the gastrointestinal tract is one of the crucial applications of capsule endoscopy (CE). The suspected blood indicator (SBI) is a conventional tool used to automatically tag images depicting possible bleeding in the reading system. We aim to develop a deep learning-based system to detect blood content in images and compare its performance with that of the SBI. Methods We trained a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) system, using 27 847 CE images (6503 images depicting blood content from 29 patients and 21 344 images of normal mucosa from 12 patients). We assessed its performance by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) and its sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, using an independent test set of 10 208 small-bowel images (208 images depicting blood content and 10 000 images of normal mucosa). The performance of the CNN was compared with that of the SBI, in individual image analysis, using the same test set. Results The AUC for the detection of blood content was 0.9998. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the CNN were 96.63%, 99.96%, and 99.89%, respectively, at a cut-off value of 0.5 for the probability score, which were significantly higher than those of the SBI (76.92%, 99.82%, and 99.35%, respectively). The trained CNN required 250 s to evaluate 10 208 test images. Conclusions We developed and tested the CNN-based detection system for blood content in CE images. This system has the potential to outperform the SBI system, and the patient-level analyses on larger studies are required.

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