63 research outputs found

    Structural Similarity based Anatomical and Functional Brain Imaging Fusion

    Full text link
    Multimodal medical image fusion helps in combining contrasting features from two or more input imaging modalities to represent fused information in a single image. One of the pivotal clinical applications of medical image fusion is the merging of anatomical and functional modalities for fast diagnosis of malignant tissues. In this paper, we present a novel end-to-end unsupervised learning-based Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) for fusing the high and low frequency components of MRI-PET grayscale image pairs, publicly available at ADNI, by exploiting Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) as the loss function during training. We then apply color coding for the visualization of the fused image by quantifying the contribution of each input image in terms of the partial derivatives of the fused image. We find that our fusion and visualization approach results in better visual perception of the fused image, while also comparing favorably to previous methods when applying various quantitative assessment metrics.Comment: Accepted at MICCAI-MBIA 201

    Identification of radiomic biomarkers in a set of four skeletal muscle groups on Dixon MRI of the NAKO MR study

    Get PDF
    In this work, we propose a processing pipeline for the extraction and identification of meaningful radiomics biomarkers in skeletal muscle tissue as displayed using Dixon-weighted MRI. Diverse and robust radiomics features can be identified that may be of aid in the accurate quantification e.g. varying degrees of sarcopenia in respective muscles of large cohorts. As such, the approach comprises the texture feature extraction from raw data based on well established approaches, such as a nnU-Net neural network and the Pyradiomics toolbox, a subsequent selection according to adequate conditions for the muscle tissue of the general population, and an importance-based ranking to further narrow the amount of meaningful features with respect to auxiliary targets. The performance was investigated with respect to the included auxiliary targets, namely age, body mass index (BMI), and fat fraction (FF). Four skeletal muscles with different fiber architecture were included: the mm. glutaei, m. psoas, as well as the extensors and adductors of the thigh. The selection allowed for a reduction from 1015 available texture features to 65 for age, 53 for BMI, and 36 for FF from the available fat/water contrast images considering all muscles jointly. Further, the dependence of the importance rankings calculated for the auxiliary targets on validation sets (in a cross-validation scheme) was investigated by boxplots. In addition, significant differences between subgroups of respective auxiliary targets as well as between both sexes were shown to be present within the ten lowest ranked features by means of Kruskal-Wallis H-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests. The prediction performance for the selected features and the ranking scheme were verified on validation sets by a random forest based multi-class classification, with strong area under the curve (AUC) values of the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) of 73.03 ± 0.70 % and 73.63 ± 0.70 % for the water and fat images in age, 80.68 ± 0.30 % and 88.03 ± 0.89 % in BMI, as well as 98.36 ± 0.03 % and 98.52 ± 0.09 % in FF

    Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms

    Get PDF
    Importance: Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives. Objective: To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measurements: Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated. Results: Overall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive ≤12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. Conclusions and Relevance: While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation

    Practical guidelines for rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection

    Get PDF
    The potential for ischemic preconditioning to reduce infarct size was first recognized more than 30 years ago. Despite extension of the concept to ischemic postconditioning and remote ischemic conditioning and literally thousands of experimental studies in various species and models which identified a multitude of signaling steps, so far there is only a single and very recent study, which has unequivocally translated cardioprotection to improved clinical outcome as the primary endpoint in patients. Many potential reasons for this disappointing lack of clinical translation of cardioprotection have been proposed, including lack of rigor and reproducibility in preclinical studies, and poor design and conduct of clinical trials. There is, however, universal agreement that robust preclinical data are a mandatory prerequisite to initiate a meaningful clinical trial. In this context, it is disconcerting that the CAESAR consortium (Consortium for preclinicAl assESsment of cARdioprotective therapies) in a highly standardized multi-center approach of preclinical studies identified only ischemic preconditioning, but not nitrite or sildenafil, when given as adjunct to reperfusion, to reduce infarct size. However, ischemic preconditioning—due to its very nature—can only be used in elective interventions, and not in acute myocardial infarction. Therefore, better strategies to identify robust and reproducible strategies of cardioprotection, which can subsequently be tested in clinical trials must be developed. We refer to the recent guidelines for experimental models of myocardial ischemia and infarction, and aim to provide now practical guidelines to ensure rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection. In line with the above guideline, we define rigor as standardized state-of-the-art design, conduct and reporting of a study, which is then a prerequisite for reproducibility, i.e. replication of results by another laboratory when performing exactly the same experiment

    Is MRI Really the Gold Standard for the Quantification of Salvage From Myocardial Infarction?

    No full text
    corecore