论文标题
半监督的学习对宠物图像的自动分割具有有限的注释:应用于淋巴瘤患者
Semi-supervised learning towards automated segmentation of PET images with limited annotations: Application to lymphoma patients
论文作者
论文摘要
手动分割的耗时任务挑战了疾病负担的常规系统量化。卷积神经网络(CNN)具有巨大的希望,可以可靠地识别PET扫描中肿瘤的位置和边界。我们的目的是通过半监督方法利用注释数据的需求,并应用于弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL)和原发性纵隔大B细胞淋巴瘤(PMBCL)的PET图像。我们分析了292例PMBCL(n = 104)和DLBCL(n = 188)患者的18F-FDG PET图像(用于培训和验证的n = 232,外部测试n = 60)。 We employed FCM and MS losses for training a 3D U-Net with different levels of supervision: i) fully supervised methods with labeled FCM (LFCM) as well as Unified focal and Dice loss functions, ii) unsupervised methods with Robust FCM (RFCM) and Mumford-Shah (MS) loss functions, and iii) Semi-supervised methods based on FCM (RFCM+LFCM)以及MS损失与监督骰子损失(MS+DICE)。与骰子损失相比,统一的损失函数得出更高的骰子得分(平均+/-标准偏差(SD))(0.73 +/- 0.03; 95%CI,0.67-0.8)与骰子损失相比(p-value <0.01)。半策准(RFCM+Alpha*lfcm)具有alpha = 0.3的表现最佳,骰子得分为0.69 +/- 0.03(95%CI,0.45-0.77)的表现优于任何监督水平(任何Alpha)(任何Alpha)(P <0.01)。与在这种半手审查的方法中的另一个监督水平相比,(MS +Alpha*骰子)半监督方法(MS +Alpha*DICE)半监督方法的骰子得分为0.60 +/- 0.08(95%CI,0.44-0.76)(p <0.01)。与监督方法相比,通过FCM损失(RFCM+Alpha*LFCM)的半监督学习表现出改善的性能。考虑到专家手动描述和观察者内部变异性的耗时性质,半监督的方法具有自动分割工作流程的巨大潜力。
The time-consuming task of manual segmentation challenges routine systematic quantification of disease burden. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) hold significant promise to reliably identify locations and boundaries of tumors from PET scans. We aimed to leverage the need for annotated data via semi-supervised approaches, with application to PET images of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). We analyzed 18F-FDG PET images of 292 patients with PMBCL (n=104) and DLBCL (n=188) (n=232 for training and validation, and n=60 for external testing). We employed FCM and MS losses for training a 3D U-Net with different levels of supervision: i) fully supervised methods with labeled FCM (LFCM) as well as Unified focal and Dice loss functions, ii) unsupervised methods with Robust FCM (RFCM) and Mumford-Shah (MS) loss functions, and iii) Semi-supervised methods based on FCM (RFCM+LFCM), as well as MS loss in combination with supervised Dice loss (MS+Dice). Unified loss function yielded higher Dice score (mean +/- standard deviation (SD)) (0.73 +/- 0.03; 95% CI, 0.67-0.8) compared to Dice loss (p-value<0.01). Semi-supervised (RFCM+alpha*LFCM) with alpha=0.3 showed the best performance, with a Dice score of 0.69 +/- 0.03 (95% CI, 0.45-0.77) outperforming (MS+alpha*Dice) for any supervision level (any alpha) (p<0.01). The best performer among (MS+alpha*Dice) semi-supervised approaches with alpha=0.2 showed a Dice score of 0.60 +/- 0.08 (95% CI, 0.44-0.76) compared to another supervision level in this semi-supervised approach (p<0.01). Semi-supervised learning via FCM loss (RFCM+alpha*LFCM) showed improved performance compared to supervised approaches. Considering the time-consuming nature of expert manual delineations and intra-observer variabilities, semi-supervised approaches have significant potential for automated segmentation workflows.