Quantitative Assessment of the Effects of Compression on Deep Learning in Digital Pathology Image Analysis.
Algorithms
Benchmarking
/ standards
Data Compression
/ methods
Deep Learning
/ standards
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Neoplasms
/ pathology
Observer Variation
Pathology, Clinical
/ standards
Quality Control
ROC Curve
Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ instrumentation
Telepathology
/ standards
Journal
JCO clinical cancer informatics
ISSN: 2473-4276
Titre abrégé: JCO Clin Cancer Inform
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101708809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
entrez:
11
3
2020
pubmed:
11
3
2020
medline:
31
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Deep learning (DL), a class of approaches involving self-learned discriminative features, is increasingly being applied to digital pathology (DP) images for tasks such as disease identification and segmentation of tissue primitives (eg, nuclei, glands, lymphocytes). One application of DP is in telepathology, which involves digitally transmitting DP slides over the Internet for secondary diagnosis by an expert at a remote location. Unfortunately, the places benefiting most from telepathology often have poor Internet quality, resulting in prohibitive transmission times of DP images. Image compression may help, but the degree to which image compression affects performance of DL algorithms has been largely unexplored. We investigated the effects of image compression on the performance of DL strategies in the context of 3 representative use cases involving segmentation of nuclei (n = 137), segmentation of lymph node metastasis (n = 380), and lymphocyte detection (n = 100). For each use case, test images at various levels of compression (JPEG compression quality score ranging from 1-100 and JPEG2000 compression peak signal-to-noise ratio ranging from 18-100 dB) were evaluated by a DL classifier. Performance metrics including F1 score and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were computed at the various compression levels. Our results suggest that DP images can be compressed by 85% while still maintaining the performance of the DL algorithms at 95% of what is achievable without any compression. Interestingly, the maximum compression level sustainable by DL algorithms is similar to where pathologists also reported difficulties in providing accurate interpretations. Our findings seem to suggest that in low-resource settings, DP images can be significantly compressed before transmission for DL-based telepathology applications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32155093
doi: 10.1200/CCI.19.00068
pmc: PMC7113072
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
221-233Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA216579
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCRR NIH HHS
ID : C06 RR012463
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U24 CA199374
Pays : United States
Organisme : BLRD VA
ID : I01 BX004121
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA239055
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA220581
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA202752
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA208236
Pays : United States
Références
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 Dec;139(12):1550-7
pubmed: 26619028
IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2011 Jun;17(6):743-56
pubmed: 21149883
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Feb;143(2):222-234
pubmed: 30307746
JAMA. 2017 Dec 12;318(22):2199-2210
pubmed: 29234806
Cytometry A. 2017 Jun;91(6):555-565
pubmed: 28426134
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2019 Jan;38(1):21-32
pubmed: 29994394
BMC Cancer. 2018 May 30;18(1):610
pubmed: 29848291
Hum Pathol. 2009 Aug;40(8):1057-69
pubmed: 19552937
J Pathol Inform. 2016 Jul 26;7:29
pubmed: 27563488
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2019 Apr;6(2):027501
pubmed: 31037247
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016 May;35(5):1285-98
pubmed: 26886976
J Pathol Inform. 2018 May 25;9:20
pubmed: 29910969
Neurocomputing. 2016 May 26;191:214-223
pubmed: 28154470
Med Image Anal. 2016 Oct;33:170-175
pubmed: 27423409
Hum Pathol. 2009 Aug;40(8):1092-9
pubmed: 19552935
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2014 Oct;1(3):034003
pubmed: 26158062