Discriminative deep learning based benignity/malignancy diagnosis of dermatologic ultrasound skin lesions with pretrained artificial intelligence architecture.
artificial intelligence
deep learning
dermatologic ultrasound
skin ultrasound
Journal
Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)
ISSN: 1600-0846
Titre abrégé: Skin Res Technol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9504453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
15
04
2021
accepted:
31
07
2021
pubmed:
23
8
2021
medline:
8
2
2022
entrez:
22
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Deep-learning algorithms (DLAs) have been used in artificial intelligence aided ultrasonography diagnosis of thyroid and breast lesions. However, its use has not been described in the case of dermatologic ultrasound lesions. Our purpose was to train a DLA to discriminate benign form malignant lesions in dermatologic ultrasound images. We trained a prebuilt neural network architecture (EfficientNet B4) in a commercial artificial intelligence platform (Peltarion, Stockholm, Sweden) with 235 color Doppler images of both benign and malignant ultrasound images of 235 excised and histologically confirmed skin lesions (84.3% training, 15.7% validation). An additional 35 test images were used for testing the algorithm discrimination for correct benign/malignant diagnosis. One dermatologist with more than 5 years of experience in dermatologic ultrasound blindly evaluated the same 35 test images for malignancy or benignity. EfficientNet B4 trained dermatologic ultrasound algorithm sensitivity; specificity; predictive positive values, and predicted negative values for validation algorithm were 0.8, 0.86, 0.86, and 0.8, respectively for malignancy diagnosis. When tested with 35 previously unevaluated images sets, the algorithm´s accuracy for correct benign/malignant diagnosis was 77.1%, not statistically significantly different from the dermatologist's evaluation (74.1%). An adequately trained algorithm, even with a limited number of images, is at least as accurate as a dermatologic-ultrasound experienced dermatologist in the evaluation of benignity/malignancy of ultrasound skin tumor images devoid of clinical data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Deep-learning algorithms (DLAs) have been used in artificial intelligence aided ultrasonography diagnosis of thyroid and breast lesions. However, its use has not been described in the case of dermatologic ultrasound lesions. Our purpose was to train a DLA to discriminate benign form malignant lesions in dermatologic ultrasound images.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
We trained a prebuilt neural network architecture (EfficientNet B4) in a commercial artificial intelligence platform (Peltarion, Stockholm, Sweden) with 235 color Doppler images of both benign and malignant ultrasound images of 235 excised and histologically confirmed skin lesions (84.3% training, 15.7% validation). An additional 35 test images were used for testing the algorithm discrimination for correct benign/malignant diagnosis. One dermatologist with more than 5 years of experience in dermatologic ultrasound blindly evaluated the same 35 test images for malignancy or benignity.
RESULTS
RESULTS
EfficientNet B4 trained dermatologic ultrasound algorithm sensitivity; specificity; predictive positive values, and predicted negative values for validation algorithm were 0.8, 0.86, 0.86, and 0.8, respectively for malignancy diagnosis. When tested with 35 previously unevaluated images sets, the algorithm´s accuracy for correct benign/malignant diagnosis was 77.1%, not statistically significantly different from the dermatologist's evaluation (74.1%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
An adequately trained algorithm, even with a limited number of images, is at least as accurate as a dermatologic-ultrasound experienced dermatologist in the evaluation of benignity/malignancy of ultrasound skin tumor images devoid of clinical data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34420233
doi: 10.1111/srt.13086
pmc: PMC9907620
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
35-39Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
J Ultrasound. 2021 Dec;24(4):429-437
pubmed: 32696414
J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Jul;38(7):1887-1897
pubmed: 30426536
Skin Res Technol. 2022 Jan;28(1):35-39
pubmed: 34420233
Lancet. 2018 Dec 1;392(10162):2388-2396
pubmed: 30318264
Ultraschall Med. 2021 Feb;42(1):39-47
pubmed: 32380567
Ultrasonics. 2019 Jan;91:1-9
pubmed: 30029074
J Ultrasound Med. 2020 Jun;39(6):1187-1194
pubmed: 31872477
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 4;13(10):e0204155
pubmed: 30286097
Head Neck. 2019 Apr;41(4):885-891
pubmed: 30715773
J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Mar;35(3):577-80
pubmed: 26887446
J Ultrasound. 2020 Jun;23(2):169-174
pubmed: 32246401
Med Ultrason. 2014 Dec;16(4):285-90
pubmed: 25463879
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2020 Dec;51(4):550-559
pubmed: 32948476
Dermatol Online J. 2016 Feb 17;22(2):
pubmed: 27267187
J Ultrasound Med. 2021 Feb;40(2):377-383
pubmed: 32757235
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Feb;62(2):247-56
pubmed: 19962214
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020 Mar 01;1(2):124-131
pubmed: 33000024