3.9 Article

Holistic classification of CT attenuation patterns for interstitial lung diseases via deep convolutional neural networks

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21681163.2015.1124249

关键词

Interstitial lung disease; convolutional neural network; holistic medical image classification

资金

  1. Center for Research in Computer Vision (CRCV) of UCF
  2. Center for Infectious Disease Imaging (CIDI)
  3. intramural research program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
  4. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)
  5. Clinical Center (CC), Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Imaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory
  6. Clinical Image Processing Service
  7. CLINICAL CENTER [ZIACL040004, ZIACL090018] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interstitial lung diseases (ILD) involve several abnormal imaging patterns observed in computed tomography (CT) images. Accurate classification of these patterns plays a significant role in precise clinical decision making of the extent and nature of the diseases. Therefore, it is important for developing automated pulmonary computer-aided detection systems. Conventionally, this task relies on experts' manual identification of regions of interest (ROIs) as a prerequisite to diagnose potential diseases. This protocol is time consuming and inhibits fully automatic assessment. In this paper, we present a new method to classify ILD imaging patterns on CT images. The main difference is that the proposed algorithm uses the entire image as a holistic input. By circumventing the prerequisite of manual input ROIs, our problem set-up is significantly more difficult than previous work but can better address the clinical workflow. Qualitative and quantitative results using a publicly available ILD database demonstrate state-of-the-art classification accuracy under the patch-based classification and shows the potential of predicting the ILD type using holistic image.

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

3.9
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