Home › Research › Digital health tools
Classification of CT brain images based on deep learning networks
Gao XW, Hui R, Tian Z.. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 2016-10-20
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
While computerised tomography (CT) may have been the first imaging tool to study human brain, it has not yet been implemented into clinical decision making process for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). On the other hand, with the nature of being prevalent, inexpensive and non-invasive, CT does present diagnostic features of AD to a great extent. This study explores the significance and impact on the application of the burgeoning deep learning techniques to the task of classification of CT brain images, in particular utilising convolutional neural network (CNN), aiming at providing supplementary information for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Towards this end, three categories of CT images (N = 285) are clustered into three groups, which are AD, lesion (e.g. tumour) and normal ageing. In addition, considering the characteristics of this collection with larger thickness along the direction of depth (z) (~3-5 mm), an advanced CNN architecture is established integrating both 2D and 3D CNN networks. The fusion of the two CNN networks is subsequently coordinated based on the average of Softmax scores obtained from both networks consolidating 2D images along spatial axial directions and 3D segmented blocks respectively. As a result, the classification accuracy rates rendered by this elaborated CNN architecture are 85.2%, 80% and 95.3% for classes of AD, lesion and normal respectively with an average of 87.6%. Additionally, this improved CNN network appears to outperform the others when in comparison with 2D version only of CNN network as well as a number of state of the art hand-crafted approaches. As a result, these approaches deliver accuracy rates in percentage of 86.3, 85.6 ± 1.10, 86.3 ± 1.04, 85.2 ± 1.60, 83.1 ± 0.35 for 2D CNN, 2D SIFT, 2D KAZE, 3D SIFT and 3D KAZE respectively. The two major contributions of the paper constitute a new 3-D approach while applying deep learning technique to extract signature information rooted in both 2D slices and 3D blocks of CT images and an elaborated hand-crated approach of 3D KAZE.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gao, X. W., Hui, R., & Tian, Z. (2017). Classification of CT brain images based on deep learning networks. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.10.007
Vancouver
Gao XW, Hui R, Tian Z. Classification of CT brain images based on deep learning networks. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.10.007. PMID: 27886714.
BibTeX
@article{gao2017-27886714,
author = {Gao, X. W. and Hui, R. and Tian, Z.},
title = {{Classification of CT brain images based on deep learning networks}},
journal = {Computer methods and programs in biomedicine},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.10.007},
pmid = {27886714},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.10.007}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- As a result, the classification accuracy rates rendered by this elaborated CNN architecture are 85.2%, 80% and 95.3% for classes of AD, lesion and normal respectively with an average of 87.6%.
- As a result, these approaches deliver accuracy rates in percentage of 86.3, 85.6 ± 1.10, 86.3 ± 1.04, 85.2 ± 1.60, 83.1 ± 0.35 for 2D CNN, 2D SIFT, 2D KAZE, 3D SIFT and 3D KAZE respectively.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants285
- Effect size85.2%; 95.3%; 87.6%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Computer methods and programs in biomedicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 285 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27886714) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “convolutional”
205 studies in the library carry the topic tag “convolutional”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 205 tagged studies.