MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012097287 · doi:10.1002/mp.14134

Automatic prostate segmentation using deep learning on clinically diverse 3D transrectal ultrasound images

2020· article· en· W3012097287 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan Orlando, Derek J. Gillies, Igor Gyacskov, Cesare Romagnoli, David D’Souza, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProstateBrachytherapy3D ultrasoundProstate biopsySegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceProstate brachytherapyProstate cancerMedicineMedical imagingUltrasoundRadiologyMedical physicsRadiation therapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Needle-based procedures for diagnosing and treating prostate cancer, such as biopsy and brachytherapy, have incorporated three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) imaging to improve needle guidance. Using these images effectively typically requires the physician to manually segment the prostate to define the margins used for accurate registration, targeting, and other guidance techniques. However, manual prostate segmentation is a time-consuming and difficult intraoperative process, often occurring while the patient is under sedation (biopsy) or anesthetic (brachytherapy). Minimizing procedure time with a 3D TRUS prostate segmentation method could provide physicians with a quick and accurate prostate segmentation, and allow for an efficient workflow with improved patient throughput to enable faster patient access to care. The purpose of this study was to develop a supervised deep learning-based method to segment the prostate in 3D TRUS images from different facilities, generated using multiple acquisition methods and commercial ultrasound machine models to create a generalizable algorithm for needle-based prostate cancer procedures. METHODS: Our proposed method for 3D segmentation involved prediction on two-dimensional (2D) slices sampled radially around the approximate central axis of the prostate, followed by reconstruction into a 3D surface. A 2D U-Net was modified, trained, and validated using images from 84 end-fire and 122 side-fire 3D TRUS images acquired during clinical biopsies and brachytherapy procedures. Modifications to the expansion section of the standard U-Net included the addition of 50% dropouts and the use of transpose convolutions instead of standard upsampling followed by convolution to reduce overfitting and improve performance, respectively. Manual contours provided the annotations needed for the training, validation, and testing datasets, with the testing dataset consisting of 20 end-fire and 20 side-fire unseen 3D TRUS images. Since predicting with 2D images has the potential to lose spatial and structural information, comparisons to 3D reconstruction and optimized 3D networks including 3D V-Net, Dense V-Net, and High-resolution 3D-Net were performed following an investigation into different loss functions. An extended selection of absolute and signed error metrics were computed, including pixel map comparisons [dice similarity coefficient (DSC), recall, and precision], volume percent differences (VPD), mean surface distance (MSD), and Hausdorff distance (HD), to assess 3D segmentation accuracy. RESULTS: Overall, our proposed reconstructed modified U-Net performed with a median [first quartile, third quartile] absolute DSC, recall, precision, VPD, MSD, and HD of 94.1 [92.6, 94.9]%, 96.0 [93.1, 98.5]%, 93.2 [88.8, 95.4]%, 5.78 [2.49, 11.50]%, 0.89 [0.73, 1.09] mm, and 2.89 [2.37, 4.35] mm, respectively. When compared to the best-performing optimized 3D network (i.e., 3D V-Net with a Dice plus cross-entropy loss function), our proposed method performed with a significant improvement across nearly all metrics. A computation time <0.7 s per prostate was observed, which is a sufficiently short segmentation time for intraoperative implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed algorithm was able to provide a fast and accurate 3D segmentation across variable 3D TRUS prostate images, enabling a generalizable intraoperative solution for needle-based prostate cancer procedures. This method has the potential to decrease procedure times, supporting the increasing interest in needle-based 3D TRUS approaches.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207