4.5 Article

Automatic detection and quantification of ground-glass opacities on high-resolution CT using multiple neural networks: Comparison with a density mask

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 175, 期 5, 页码 1329-1334

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.175.5.1751329

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE, We compared multiple neural networks with a density mask for the automatic detection and quantification of ground-glass opacities on high-resolution CT under clinical conditions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Eighty-four patients (54 men and 30 women; age range, 18-82 years; mean age, 49 years) with a total of 99 consecutive high-resolution CT scans were enrolled in the study. The neural network was designed to detect ground-glass opacities with high sensitivity and to omit air-tissue interfaces to increase specificity. The results of the neural network were compared with those of a density mask (thresholds, -750/-300 H), with a radiologist serving as the gold standard. RESULTS. The neural network classified 6% of the total lung area as ground-glass opacities. The density mask failed to detect 1.3%, and this percentage represented the increase in sensitivity that was achieved by the neural network. The density mask identified another 17.3% of the total lung area to be ground-glass opacities that were not detected by the neural network. This area represented the increase in specificity achieved by the neural network. Related to the extent of the ground-glass opacities as classified by the radiologist. the neural network (density mask) reached a sensitivity of 99% (89%), specificity of 83% (55%). positive predictive value of 78% (18%), negative predictive value of 99% (98%), and accuracy of 89% (58%). CONCLUSION. Automatic segmentation and quantification of ground-glass opacities on high-resolution CT by a neural network are sufficiently accurate to be implemented for the preinterpretation of images in a clinical environment; it is superior to a double-threshold density mask.

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

4.5
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