Deep learning for accurate B-line detection and localization in lung ultrasound imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has become an essential imaging modality for assessing various pulmonary conditions, including the presence of B-line artifacts. These artifacts are commonly associated with conditions such as increased extravascular lung water, decompensated heart failure, dialysis-related chronic kidney disease, interstitial lung disease, and COVID-19 pneumonia. Accurate detection of the B-line in LUS images is crucial for effective diagnosis and treatment. However, interpreting LUS is often subject to observer variability, requiring significant expertise and posing challenges in resource-limited settings with few trained professionals. Methods: To address these limitations, deep learning models have been developed for automated B-line detection and localization. This study introduces YOLOv5-PBB and YOLOv8-PBB, two modified models based on YOLOv5 and YOLOv8, respectively, designed for precise and interpretable B-line localization using polygonal bounding boxes (PBBs). YOLOv5-PBB was enhanced by modifying the detection head, loss function, non-maximum suppression, and data loader to enable PBB localization. YOLOv8-PBB was customized to convert segmentation masks into polygonal representations, displaying only boundaries while removing the masks. Additionally, an image preprocessing technique was incorporated into the models to enhance LUS image quality. The models were trained on a diverse dataset from a publicly available repository and Ugandan health facilities. Results: Experimental results showed that YOLOv8-PBB achieved the highest precision (0.947), recall (0.926), and mean average precision (0.957). YOLOv5-PBB, while slightly lower in performance (precision: 0.931, recall: 0.918, mAP: 0.936), had advantages in model size (14 MB vs. 21 MB) and average inference time (33.1 ms vs. 47.7 ms), making it more suitable for real-time applications in low-resource settings. Discussion: The integration of these models into a mobile LUS screening tool provides a promising solution for B-line localization in resource-limited settings, where accessibility to trained professionals may be scarce. The YOLOv5-PBB and YOLOv8-PBB models offer high performance while addressing challenges related to inference speed and model size, making them ideal candidates for mobile deployment in such environments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".