Skeletal radiology · 2024
Application of deep learning algorithms in classification and localization of implant cutout for the postoperative hip.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tan Jin Rong, Gao Yan, Raghuraman Raghavan, Ting Daniel, Wong Kang Min, Cheng Lionel Tim-Ee, Oh Hong Choon, Goh Siang Hiong, Yan Yet Yen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the feasibility of employing convolutional neural networks for detecting and localizing implant cutouts on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research involves the development of two Deep Learning models. Initially, a model was created for image-level classification of implant cutouts using 40191 pelvic radiographs obtained from a single institution. The radiographs were partitioned into training, validation, and hold-out test datasets in a 6/2/2 ratio. Performance metrics including the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated using the test dataset. Additionally, a second object detection model was trained to localize implant cutouts within the same dataset. Bounding box visualizations were generated on images predicted as cutout-positive by the classification model in the test dataset, serving as an adjunct for assessing algorithm validity.
RESULTS: The classification model had an accuracy of 99.7%, sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 99.8%, AUROC of 0.998 (95% CI: 0.996, 0.999) and AUPRC of 0.774 (95% CI: 0.646, 0.880). From the pelvic radiographs predicted as cutout-positive, the object detection model could achieve 95.5% localization accuracy on true positive images, but falsely generated 14 results from the 15 false-positive predictions.
CONCLUSION: The classification model showed fair accuracy for detection of implant cutouts, while the object detection model effectively localized cutout. This serves as proof of concept of using a deep learning-based approach for classification and localization of implant cutouts from pelvic radiographs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research involves the development of two Deep Learning models. Initially, a model was created for image-level classification of implant cutouts using 40191 pelvic radiographs obtained from a single institution. The radiographs were partitioned into training, validation, and hold-out test datasets in a 6/2/2 ratio. Performance metrics including the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated using the test dataset. Additionally, a second object detection model was trained to localize implant cutouts within the same dataset. Bounding box visualizations were generated on images predicted as cutout-positive by the classification model in the test dataset, serving as an adjunct for assessing algorithm validity.
RESULTS: The classification model had an accuracy of 99.7%, sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 99.8%, AUROC of 0.998 (95% CI: 0.996, 0.999) and AUPRC of 0.774 (95% CI: 0.646, 0.880). From the pelvic radiographs predicted as cutout-positive, the object detection model could achieve 95.5% localization accuracy on true positive images, but falsely generated 14 results from the 15 false-positive predictions.
CONCLUSION: The classification model showed fair accuracy for detection of implant cutouts, while the object detection model effectively localized cutout. This serves as proof of concept of using a deep learning-based approach for classification and localization of implant cutouts from pelvic radiographs.