4.6 Article

FecalNet: Automated detection of visible components in human feces using deep learning

期刊

MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 47, 期 9, 页码 4212-4222

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mp.14352

关键词

automatic identification; deep learning; Fecal components; FecalNet; neural network

资金

  1. Shenzhen Science and Technology Project [JCYJ20170302152605463, JCYJ20170306123423907, JCYJ20180507182025817]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China-Shenzhen Joint Fund Project [U1713220]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To automate the detection and identification of visible components in feces for early diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases, we propose FecalNet, a method using multiple deep neural networks. Methods FecalNet uses the ResNet152 residual network to extract and learn the characteristics of visible components in fecal microscopic images, acquire feature maps in combination with the feature pyramid network, apply the full convolutional network to classify and locate the fecal components, and implement the improved focal loss function to reoptimize the classification results. This allowed the complete automation of the detection and identification of the visible components in feces. Results We validated this method using a fecal database of 1,122 patients. The results indicated a mean average precision (mAP) of 92.16% and an average recall (AR) of 93.56%. The average precision (AP) and AR of erythrocyte, leukocyte, intestinal mucosal epithelial cells, hookworm eggs, ascarid eggs, and whipworm eggs were 92.82% and 93.38%, 93.99% and 96.11%, 90.71% and 92.41%, 89.95% and 93.88%, 96.90% and 91.21%, and 88.61% and 94.37%, respectively. The average times required by the GPU and the CPU to analyze a fecal microscopic image are approximately 0.14 and 1.02 s, respectively. Conclusion FecalNet can automate the detection and identification of visible components in feces. It also provides a detection and identification framework for detecting several other types of cells in clinical practice.

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