Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36052321›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

MNet-10: A robust shallow convolutional neural network model performing ablation study on medical images assessing the effectiveness of applying optimal data augmentation technique.

Sidratul Montaha, Sami Azam, A K M Rakibul Haque Rafid, Md Zahid Hasan, Asif Karim, Khan Md Hasib, Shobhit K Patel, Mirjam Jonkman, Zubaer Ibna Mannan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Sidratul MontahaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Sami AzamCollege of Engineering, IT & Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia.
A K M Rakibul Haque RafidDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Md Zahid HasanDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Asif KarimCollege of Engineering, IT & Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia.
Khan Md HasibDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Shobhit K PatelDepartment of Computer Engineering, Marwadi University, Rajkot, India.
Mirjam JonkmanCollege of Engineering, IT & Environment, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia.
Zubaer Ibna MannanDepartment of Smart Computing, Kyungdong University - Global Campus, Sokcho-si, South Korea.
Charles Darwin University · AUDaffodil International University · BDAhsanullah University of Science and Technology · BDKyungdong University · KRMarwadi University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interpretation of medical images with a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system is arduous because of the complex structure of cancerous lesions in different imaging modalities, high degree of resemblance between inter-classes, presence of dissimilar characteristics in intra-classes, scarcity of medical data, and presence of artifacts and noises. In this study, these challenges are addressed by developing a shallow convolutional neural network (CNN) model with optimal configuration performing ablation study by altering layer structure and hyper-parameters and utilizing a suitable augmentation technique. Eight medical datasets with different modalities are investigated where the proposed model, named MNet-10, with low computational complexity is able to yield optimal performance across all datasets. The impact of photometric and geometric augmentation techniques on different datasets is also evaluated. We selected the mammogram dataset to proceed with the ablation study for being one of the most challenging imaging modalities. Before generating the model, the dataset is augmented using the two approaches. A base CNN model is constructed first and applied to both the augmented and non-augmented mammogram datasets where the highest accuracy is obtained with the photometric dataset. Therefore, the architecture and hyper-parameters of the model are determined by performing an ablation study on the base model using the mammogram photometric dataset. Afterward, the robustness of the network and the impact of different augmentation techniques are assessed by training the model with the rest of the seven datasets. We obtain a test accuracy of 97.34% on the mammogram, 98.43% on the skin cancer, 99.54% on the brain tumor magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 97.29% on the COVID chest X-ray, 96.31% on the tympanic membrane, 99.82% on the chest computed tomography (CT) scan, and 98.75% on the breast cancer ultrasound datasets by photometric augmentation and 96.76% on the breast cancer microscopic biopsy dataset by geometric augmentation. Moreover, some elastic deformation augmentation methods are explored with the proposed model using all the datasets to evaluate their effectiveness. Finally, VGG16, InceptionV3, and ResNet50 were trained on the best-performing augmented datasets, and their performance consistency was compared with that of the MNet-10 model. The findings may aid future researchers in medical data analysis involving ablation studies and augmentation techniques.

Indexed as

ablation studydeep learning modelsgeometric augmentationmedical imagephotometric augmentationshallow CNN

Identifiers

PMID36052321
PMCPMC9424498
OpenAlexW4291915169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.