Deep Neural Network-Based Prediction of the Risk of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia.
Colorectal neoplasms
Deep learning
Mass screening
Neural networks
Prediction
Journal
Gut and liver
ISSN: 2005-1212
Titre abrégé: Gut Liver
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101316452
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 01 2021
15 01 2021
Historique:
received:
30
09
2019
revised:
06
12
2019
accepted:
09
12
2019
pubmed:
31
12
2020
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
30
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Risk prediction models using a deep neural network (DNN) have not been reported to predict the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN). The aim of this study was to compare DNN models with simple clinical score models to predict the risk of ACRN in colorectal cancer screening. Databases of screening colonoscopy from Kangbuk Samsung Hospital (n=121,794) and Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong (n=3,728) were used to develop DNN-based prediction models. Two DNN models, the Asian-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) model and the Korean Colorectal Screening (KCS) model, were developed and compared with two simple score models using logistic regression methods to predict the risk of ACRN. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the models were compared in internal and external validation databases. In the internal validation set, the AUCs of DNN model 1 and the APCS score model were 0.713 and 0.662 (p<0.001), respectively, and the AUCs of DNN model 2 and the KCS score model were 0.730 and 0.667 (p<0.001), respectively. However, in the external validation set, the prediction performances were not significantly different between the two DNN models and the corresponding APCS and KCS score models (both p>0.1). Simple score models for the risk prediction of ACRN are as useful as DNN-based models when input variables are limited. However, further studies on this issue are warranted to predict the risk of ACRN in colorectal cancer screening because DNN-based models are currently under improvement.
Sections du résumé
Background/Aims
Risk prediction models using a deep neural network (DNN) have not been reported to predict the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN). The aim of this study was to compare DNN models with simple clinical score models to predict the risk of ACRN in colorectal cancer screening.
Methods
Databases of screening colonoscopy from Kangbuk Samsung Hospital (n=121,794) and Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong (n=3,728) were used to develop DNN-based prediction models. Two DNN models, the Asian-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) model and the Korean Colorectal Screening (KCS) model, were developed and compared with two simple score models using logistic regression methods to predict the risk of ACRN. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the models were compared in internal and external validation databases.
Results
In the internal validation set, the AUCs of DNN model 1 and the APCS score model were 0.713 and 0.662 (p<0.001), respectively, and the AUCs of DNN model 2 and the KCS score model were 0.730 and 0.667 (p<0.001), respectively. However, in the external validation set, the prediction performances were not significantly different between the two DNN models and the corresponding APCS and KCS score models (both p>0.1).
Conclusions
Simple score models for the risk prediction of ACRN are as useful as DNN-based models when input variables are limited. However, further studies on this issue are warranted to predict the risk of ACRN in colorectal cancer screening because DNN-based models are currently under improvement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33376229
pii: gnl19334
doi: 10.5009/gnl19334
pmc: PMC7817932
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
85-91Références
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110(7):1062-71
pubmed: 26010311
Nature. 2015 May 28;521(7553):436-44
pubmed: 26017442
Radiology. 1983 Sep;148(3):839-43
pubmed: 6878708
JAMA. 2017 Dec 12;318(22):2199-2210
pubmed: 29234806
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jul;32(7):1328-1335
pubmed: 28012211
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan;111(1):105-14
pubmed: 26526080
Gut. 2011 Sep;60(9):1236-41
pubmed: 21402615
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1095-105
pubmed: 24047059
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Sep 1;163(5):339-46
pubmed: 26259154
CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Nov-Dec;57(6):354-66
pubmed: 17989130
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1106-14
pubmed: 24047060
Gut. 2014 Jul;63(7):1112-9
pubmed: 24385598
Gastroenterology. 2006 Oct;131(4):1011-9
pubmed: 17030171
Gut. 2019 Jan;68(1):94-100
pubmed: 29066576
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan;49(1):41-9
pubmed: 24583751
JAMA. 2017 Dec 12;318(22):2211-2223
pubmed: 29234807
JAMA. 2016 Dec 13;316(22):2402-2410
pubmed: 27898976
Metabolism. 2016 Feb;65(2):68-77
pubmed: 26773930
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb;154(3):568-575
pubmed: 29042219
Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118
pubmed: 28117445
Brief Bioinform. 2017 Sep 1;18(5):851-869
pubmed: 27473064
Public Health Nutr. 2009 Apr;12(4):497-506
pubmed: 18547457
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132