Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32350661›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Automated classification of solid renal masses on contrast-enhanced computed tomography images using convolutional neural network with decision fusion.

Fatemeh Zabihollahy, Nicola Schieda, Satheesh Krishna, Eranga Ukwatta

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fatemeh ZabihollahyDepartment of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, 339 Riversedge Crescent, Ottawa, ON, K1V 0Y6, Canada. fatemehzabihollahy@cmail.carleton.ca.
Nicola SchiedaDepartment of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Satheesh KrishnaDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Eranga UkwattaSchool of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop a deep learning-based method for automated classification of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from benign solid renal masses using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images.

methodsThis institutional review board-approved retrospective study evaluated CECT in 315 patients with 77 benign (57 oncocytomas, and 20 fat-poor angiomyolipoma) and 238 malignant (RCC: 123 clear cell, 69 papillary, and 46 chromophobe subtypes) tumors identified consecutively between 2015 and 2017. We employed a decision fusion-based model to aggregate slice level predictions determined by convolutional neural network (CNN) via a majority voting system to evaluate renal masses on CECT. The CNN-based model was trained using 7023 slices with renal masses manually extracted from CECT images of 155 patients, cropped automatically around kidneys, and augmented artificially. We also examined the fully automated approach for renal mass evaluation on CECT. Moreover, a 3D CNN was trained and tested using the same datasets and the obtained results were compared with those acquired from slice-wise algorithms.

resultsFor differentiation of RCC versus benign solid masses, the semi-automated majority voting-based CNN algorithm achieved accuracy, precision, and recall of 83.75%, 89.05%, and 91.73% using 160 test cases, respectively. Fully automated pipeline yielded accuracy, precision, and recall of 77.36%, 85.92%, and 87.22% on the same test cases, respectively. 3D CNN reported accuracy, precision, and recall of 79.24%, 90.32%, and 84.21% using 160 test cases, respectively.

conclusionsA semi-automated majority voting CNN-based methodology enabled accurate classification of RCC from benign neoplasms among solid renal masses on CECT. KEY POINTS: • Our proposed semi-automated majority voting CNN-based algorithm achieved accuracy of 83.75% for the diagnosis of RCC from benign solid renal masses on CECT images. • A fully automated CNN-based methodology classified solid renal masses with moderate accuracy of 77.36% using the same test images. • Employing 3D CNN-based methodology yielded slightly lower accuracy for renal mass classification compared with the semi- automated 2D CNN-based algorithm (79.24%).

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerAdenoma, OxyphilicAlgorithmsAngiomyolipomaCarcinoma, Renal CellContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedKidney NeoplasmsMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaBenign neoplasmsKidneyRenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.