Deep Learning Assisted Diagnosis of Onychomycosis on Whole-Slide Images.
U-NET
artificial intelligence
deep learning
dermatology
onychomycosis
Journal
Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2309-608X
Titre abrégé: J Fungi (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101671827
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Aug 2022
28 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
17
07
2022
revised:
18
08
2022
accepted:
25
08
2022
entrez:
22
9
2022
pubmed:
23
9
2022
medline:
23
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Onychomycosis numbers among the most common fungal infections in humans affecting finger- or toenails. Histology remains a frequently applied screening technique to diagnose onychomycosis. Screening slides for fungal elements can be time-consuming for pathologists, and sensitivity in cases with low amounts of fungi remains a concern. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have revolutionized image classification in recent years. The goal of our project was to evaluate if a U-NET-based segmentation approach as a subcategory of CNNs can be applied to detect fungal elements on digitized histologic sections of human nail specimens and to compare it with the performance of 11 board-certified dermatopathologists. In total, 664 corresponding H&E- and PAS-stained histologic whole-slide images (WSIs) of human nail plates from four different laboratories were digitized. Histologic structures were manually annotated. A U-NET image segmentation model was trained for binary segmentation on the dataset generated by annotated slides. The U-NET algorithm detected 90.5% of WSIs with fungi, demonstrating a comparable sensitivity with that of the 11 board-certified dermatopathologists (sensitivity of 89.2%). Our results demonstrate that machine-learning-based algorithms applied to real-world clinical cases can produce comparable sensitivities to human pathologists. Our established U-NET may be used as a supportive diagnostic tool to preselect possible slides with fungal elements. Slides where fungal elements are indicated by our U-NET should be reevaluated by the pathologist to confirm or refute the diagnosis of onychomycosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Onychomycosis numbers among the most common fungal infections in humans affecting finger- or toenails. Histology remains a frequently applied screening technique to diagnose onychomycosis. Screening slides for fungal elements can be time-consuming for pathologists, and sensitivity in cases with low amounts of fungi remains a concern. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have revolutionized image classification in recent years. The goal of our project was to evaluate if a U-NET-based segmentation approach as a subcategory of CNNs can be applied to detect fungal elements on digitized histologic sections of human nail specimens and to compare it with the performance of 11 board-certified dermatopathologists.
METHODS
METHODS
In total, 664 corresponding H&E- and PAS-stained histologic whole-slide images (WSIs) of human nail plates from four different laboratories were digitized. Histologic structures were manually annotated. A U-NET image segmentation model was trained for binary segmentation on the dataset generated by annotated slides.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The U-NET algorithm detected 90.5% of WSIs with fungi, demonstrating a comparable sensitivity with that of the 11 board-certified dermatopathologists (sensitivity of 89.2%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results demonstrate that machine-learning-based algorithms applied to real-world clinical cases can produce comparable sensitivities to human pathologists. Our established U-NET may be used as a supportive diagnostic tool to preselect possible slides with fungal elements. Slides where fungal elements are indicated by our U-NET should be reevaluated by the pathologist to confirm or refute the diagnosis of onychomycosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36135637
pii: jof8090912
doi: 10.3390/jof8090912
pmc: PMC9504700
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Math Biosci Eng. 2019 Jul 15;16(6):6536-6561
pubmed: 31698575
J Cutan Med Surg. 2017 Nov/Dec;21(6):525-539
pubmed: 28639462
Nature. 2015 May 28;521(7553):436-44
pubmed: 26017442
Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118
pubmed: 28117445
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Oct;55(4):620-6
pubmed: 17010741
Mycoses. 2011 Sep;54(5):e539-45
pubmed: 21605185
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Jul 25;113(29-30):509-18
pubmed: 27545710
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011 Feb;25(2):235-7
pubmed: 20477921
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Aug 16;22(16):
pubmed: 34445517
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1836-1842
pubmed: 29846502
J Med Ethics. 2020 Apr 3;:
pubmed: 32245804
Med Image Anal. 2021 May;70:101996
pubmed: 33647783
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2000 Sep;90(8):394-6
pubmed: 11021050
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jan-Mar;29(1 Suppl):31-2
pubmed: 26016964
Br J Dermatol. 2003 Apr;148(4):749-54
pubmed: 12752134
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 10;11(1):16244
pubmed: 34376717
Eur J Radiol. 2020 Jan;122:108768
pubmed: 31786504
Arch Dermatol. 2000 Sep;136(9):1112-6
pubmed: 10987866
Nature. 2017 Oct 18;550(7676):354-359
pubmed: 29052630
Nature. 2021 Aug;596(7873):583-589
pubmed: 34265844
Acta Derm Venereol. 2021 Aug 31;101(8):adv00532
pubmed: 34405243
Mycoses. 2016 Sep;59(9):558-65
pubmed: 27061613
Mycoses. 2007 Nov;50(6):463-9
pubmed: 17944707
Arch Dermatol. 2000 Sep;136(9):1162-4
pubmed: 10987877
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2021 Jun;19(6):885-888
pubmed: 33634561
Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2008 Aug-Sep;135(8-9):561-6
pubmed: 18789289
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006 Feb;12(2):181-4
pubmed: 16441458
Br J Dermatol. 2007 Oct;157(4):698-703
pubmed: 17714569
Front Oncol. 2020 Aug 20;10:1559
pubmed: 33014803
J Med Syst. 2018 Oct 8;42(11):226
pubmed: 30298337
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 29;15(9):e0239648
pubmed: 32991597
Eur J Cancer. 2020 Mar;127:21-29
pubmed: 31972395
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 22;17(1):166
pubmed: 28222676
J Imaging. 2021 Apr 13;7(4):
pubmed: 34460521