4.8 Article

Automated abnormality detection in lower extremity radiographs using deep learning

期刊

NATURE MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
卷 1, 期 12, 页码 578-583

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42256-019-0126-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stanford Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging (AIMI)
  2. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health [R01LM012966]
  3. Stanford Child Health Research Institute (Stanford NIH-NCATSCTSA grant) [UL1 TR001085]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Musculoskeletal disorders are a major healthcare challenge around the world. We investigate the utility of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in performing generalized abnormality detection on lower extremity radiographs. We also explore the effect of pretraining, dataset size and model architecture on model performance to provide recommendations for future deep learning analyses on extremity radiographs, especially when access to large datasets is challenging. We collected a large dataset of 93,455 lower extremity radiographs of multiple body parts, with each exam labelled as normal or abnormal. A 161-layer densely connected, pretrained CNN achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.880 (sensitivity=0.714, specificity=0.961) on this abnormality classification task. Our findings show that a single CNN model can be effectively utilized for the identification of diverse abnormalities in highly variable radiographs of multiple body parts, a result that holds potential for improving patient triage and assisting with diagnostics in resource-limited settings. Identifying abnormalities in medical images across different viewing angles and body parts is a time-consuming task. Deep learning techniques hold great promise for supporting radiologists and improving patient triage decisions. A new study tests the viability of such approaches in resource-limited settings, exploring the effect of pretraining, dataset size and choice of deep learning model in the task of abnormality detection in lower-limb radiographs.

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

4.8
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