MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3080488513 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30188-6

Convolutional neural network for the detection of pancreatic cancer on CT scans – Authors' reply

2020· letter· en· W3080488513 sur OpenAlexaff
Wei‐Chih Liao, Amber L. Simpson, Weichung Wang

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2020
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPancreatic cancerMedicineAdenocarcinomaPancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaScopusCancerRetrospective cohort studyRadiologyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineMEDLINE

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We thank Garima Suman and colleagues for comments on our Article.1Liu K-L Wu T Chen P-T et al.Deep learning to distinguish pancreatic cancer tissue from non-cancerous pancreatic tissue: a retrospective study with cross-racial external validation.Lancet Digital Health. 2020; 2: e303-e313Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (61) Google Scholar Because segmentation was not the focus of our study, we did not store the initial segmentation and thus cannot assess variabilities between the initial and final segmentation. We agree that such information is useful and should be stored in future studies. Because a study2Attiyeh MA Chakraborty J Doussot A et al.Survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by quantitative computed tomography image analysis.Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25: 1034-1042Crossref PubMed Scopus (76) Google Scholar from the centre that provided the external dataset in our study (Medical Segmentation Decathlon Dataset [MSDD]) included 161 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Suman and colleagues inferred that MSDD included only 161 pancreatic adenocarcinomas. However, those 161 patients were selected from 391 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing resection between 2009 and 2012,2Attiyeh MA Chakraborty J Doussot A et al.Survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by quantitative computed tomography image analysis.Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25: 1034-1042Crossref PubMed Scopus (76) Google Scholar whereas MSDD included 420 patients without information on inclusion period and treatment, and 281 patients with tumour labelling were used in our study. Given incomplete information and inconsistent numbers, we cannot exclude the possibility that some of those 281 external patients had non-pancreatic adenocarcinoma tumours, but we cannot verify this proposition. Therefore, our results of testing in the external dataset should be interpreted with caution. We appreciate the providers of MSDD, the only public pancreatic tumour CT dataset of sufficient volume, for their tremendous efforts and generosity. On the other hand, our experience highlights the challenges posed by the paucity of public data and difficulties in verifying and using external datasets. Because MSDD was intended for a segmentation challenge, information such as outcomes and histology was not provided. When accessing MSDD we sought to request further information, and a subsequently added document3Simpson AL Antonelli M Bakas S et al.A large annotated medical image dataset for the development and evaluation of segmentation algorithms.arXiv. 2019; (published online Feb 25.) (preprint)http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09063Google Scholar clarified that the dataset included pancreatic adenocarcinomas, neuroendocrine tumours, and intraductal mucinous neoplasms. However, the diagnosis of each image and method of diagnosis remain unclear. Notably, imaging findings might overlap between various pancreatic tumours and even benign conditions such as chronic pancreatitis;4To'o KJ Raman SS Yu NC et al.Pancreatic and peripancreatic diseases mimicking primary pancreatic neoplasia.Radiographics. 2005; 25: 949-965Crossref PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar therefore, in the local datasets we only included histologically or cytologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinomas. We understand that making such information publicly available might not be feasible given regulations on patient privacy and health data protection, which vary across regions and institutions. We agree that transparent, carefully curated public datasets with detailed clinical information are needed to facilitate future research. Data sharing efforts are undertaken by individual investigators based on goodwill. Mitigating data paucity requires incentives for dataset providers and validated tools to facilitate data collection, processing, and de-identification. Standardising the process of dataset preparation and sharing is needed to enable precise dataset interpretation and use by external users. W-CL and WW report grants from Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, during the conduct of the study. W-CL and WW have a patent pending—differentiation between pancreatic cancer and non-cancerous pancreas on contrast-enhanced CT by deep learning. AS declares no competing interests. Deep learning to distinguish pancreatic cancer tissue from non-cancerous pancreatic tissue: a retrospective study with cross-racial external validationCNN could accurately distinguish pancreatic cancer on CT, with acceptable generalisability to images of patients from various races and ethnicities. CNN could supplement radiologist interpretation. Full-Text PDF Open AccessConvolutional neural network for the detection of pancreatic cancer on CT scansWe applaud Kao-Lang Liu and colleagues1 for the development of a convolutional neural network (CNN) to classify CT image patches into cancerous and non-cancerous pancreatic tissue groups. Specifically, the patients with abnormal images were those who had histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In this study, the pancreas and tumours were segmented by two experienced abdominal radiologists followed by joint review because pancreatic cancer on CT scans tends to be infiltrative and can be subtle. Full-Text PDF Open Access

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,032

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,091
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,005
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0140,023
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,094
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,290 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Lancet Digital HealthMême sujetPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchTravaux en français237 207