Deep learning for histopathological segmentation of smooth muscle in the urinary bladder.
Bladder cancer
Deep learning
Pathological slides
Segmentation
Smooth muscle
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jul 2023
15 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
31
05
2022
accepted:
03
07
2023
medline:
17
7
2023
pubmed:
16
7
2023
entrez:
15
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Histological assessment of smooth muscle is a critical step particularly in staging malignant tumors in various internal organs including the urinary bladder. Nonetheless, manual segmentation and classification of muscular tissues by pathologists is often challenging. Therefore, a fully automated and reliable smooth muscle image segmentation system is in high demand. To characterize muscle fibers in the urinary bladder, including muscularis mucosa (MM) and muscularis propria (MP), we assessed 277 histological images from surgical specimens, using two well-known deep learning (DL) model groups, one including VGG16, ResNet18, SqueezeNet, and MobileNetV2, considered as a patch-based approach, and the other including U-Net, MA-Net, DeepLabv3 + , and FPN, considered as a pixel-based approach. All the trained models in both the groups were evaluated at pixel-level for their performance. For segmenting MP and non-MP (including MM) regions, MobileNetV2, in the patch-based approach and U-Net, in the pixel-based approach outperformed their peers in the groups with mean Jaccard Index equal to 0.74 and 0.79, and mean Dice co-efficient equal to 0.82 and 0.88, respectively. We also demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of the models in terms of speed and prediction accuracy. This work not only creates a benchmark for future development of tools for the histological segmentation of smooth muscle but also provides an effective DL-based diagnostic system for accurate pathological staging of bladder cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Histological assessment of smooth muscle is a critical step particularly in staging malignant tumors in various internal organs including the urinary bladder. Nonetheless, manual segmentation and classification of muscular tissues by pathologists is often challenging. Therefore, a fully automated and reliable smooth muscle image segmentation system is in high demand.
METHODS
METHODS
To characterize muscle fibers in the urinary bladder, including muscularis mucosa (MM) and muscularis propria (MP), we assessed 277 histological images from surgical specimens, using two well-known deep learning (DL) model groups, one including VGG16, ResNet18, SqueezeNet, and MobileNetV2, considered as a patch-based approach, and the other including U-Net, MA-Net, DeepLabv3 + , and FPN, considered as a pixel-based approach. All the trained models in both the groups were evaluated at pixel-level for their performance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For segmenting MP and non-MP (including MM) regions, MobileNetV2, in the patch-based approach and U-Net, in the pixel-based approach outperformed their peers in the groups with mean Jaccard Index equal to 0.74 and 0.79, and mean Dice co-efficient equal to 0.82 and 0.88, respectively. We also demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of the models in terms of speed and prediction accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This work not only creates a benchmark for future development of tools for the histological segmentation of smooth muscle but also provides an effective DL-based diagnostic system for accurate pathological staging of bladder cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37454065
doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02222-3
pii: 10.1186/s12911-023-02222-3
pmc: PMC10349433
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
122Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : GM116102
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Surg Pathol. 2010 Mar;34(3):418-22
pubmed: 20154589
Med Image Anal. 2014 Apr;18(3):591-604
pubmed: 24637156
Sci Rep. 2016 May 23;6:26286
pubmed: 27212078
Med Image Anal. 2017 Feb;36:135-146
pubmed: 27898306
J Anat. 1983 Mar;136(Pt 2):265-71
pubmed: 6682849
Nature. 2020 Sep;585(7825):357-362
pubmed: 32939066
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2017 Apr;39(4):640-651
pubmed: 27244717
Med Image Anal. 2021 Jan;67:101813
pubmed: 33049577
Am J Pathol. 2020 Jul;190(7):1491-1504
pubmed: 32277893
Comput Math Methods Med. 2017;2017:2361061
pubmed: 28487745
Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 29;9(1):864
pubmed: 30696866
Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5
pubmed: 15405679
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2013;16(Pt 2):411-8
pubmed: 24579167
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2017 Jun 21;19:221-248
pubmed: 28301734
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 14;10(1):21899
pubmed: 33318495
Urology. 2010 Sep;76(3):600-2
pubmed: 20394971
Int J Biol Markers. 2017 Jul 24;32(3):e305-e312
pubmed: 28218359
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019 Jun 21;7:145
pubmed: 31281813
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2018 May;40(5):1182-1194
pubmed: 28129148
Am J Surg Pathol. 2007 Sep;31(9):1420-9
pubmed: 17721199
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 13;8(1):12054
pubmed: 30104757