Biomedical Science Letters (대한의생명과학회지)

The Korean Society for Biomedical Laboratory Sciences (대한의생명과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

VGG-based BAPL Score Classification of 18F-Florbetaben Amyloid Brain PET

  • Kang, Hyeon (Institute of Convergence Bio-Health, Dong-A University) ;
  • Kim, Woong-Gon (Economic Survey, Gyeongin Regional Statistics Office) ;
  • Yang, Gyung-Seung (Ubicod Company) ;
  • Kim, Hyun-Woo (Department of Industrial Engineering, Hanyang University) ;
  • Jeong, Ji-Eun (Institute of Convergence Bio-Health, Dong-A University) ;
  • Yoon, Hyun-Jin (Institute of Convergence Bio-Health, Dong-A University) ;
  • Cho, Kook (Institute of Convergence Bio-Health, Dong-A University) ;
  • Jeong, Young-Jin (Institute of Convergence Bio-Health, Dong-A University) ;
  • Kang, Do-Young (Institute of Convergence Bio-Health, Dong-A University)
  • Received : 2018.11.26
  • Accepted : 2018.12.06
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Amyloid brain positron emission tomography (PET) images are visually and subjectively analyzed by the physician with a lot of time and effort to determine the ${\beta}$-Amyloid ($A{\beta}$) deposition. We designed a convolutional neural network (CNN) model that predicts the $A{\beta}$-positive and $A{\beta}$-negative status. We performed 18F-florbetaben (FBB) brain PET on controls and patients (n=176) with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). We classified brain PET images visually as per the on the brain amyloid plaque load score. We designed the visual geometry group (VGG16) model for the visual assessment of slice-based samples. To evaluate only the gray matter and not the white matter, gray matter masking (GMM) was applied to the slice-based standard samples. All the performance metrics were higher with GMM than without GMM (accuracy 92.39 vs. 89.60, sensitivity 87.93 vs. 85.76, and specificity 98.94 vs. 95.32). For the patient-based standard, all the performance metrics were almost the same (accuracy 89.78 vs. 89.21), lower (sensitivity 93.97 vs. 99.14), and higher (specificity 81.67 vs. 70.00). The area under curve with the VGG16 model that observed the gray matter region only was slightly higher than the model that observed the whole brain for both slice-based and patient-based decision processes. Amyloid brain PET images can be appropriately analyzed using the CNN model for predicting the $A{\beta}$-positive and $A{\beta}$-negative status.

Keywords

References

  1. Barthel H, Gertz HJ, Dresel S, Peters O, Bartenstein P, Buerger K, Hiemeyer F, Wittemer-Rump SM, Seibyl J, Reininger C, Sabri O. Cerebral amyloid-$\beta$ PET with florbetaben (18F) in patients with Alzheimer's disease and healthy controls: a multicenter phase 2 diagnostic study. The Lancet Neurology. 2011. 10: 424-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70077-1
  2. Bergstra J, Bengio Y. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2012. 13: 281-305.
  3. Choi WH, Um YH, Jung WS, Kim SH. Automated quantification of amyloid positron emission tomography: a comparison of pmod and mimneuro. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 2016. 30:682-689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-016-1115-6
  4. Gulshan V, Peng L, Coram M, Stumpe MC, Wu D, Narayanaswamy A, Venugopalan S, Widner K, Madams Tom, Cuadros J, Kim R, Raman R, Nelson PC, Mega JL, Webster DR. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA. 2016. 316: 2402-2410. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.17216
  5. Gunasekaran TI, Ohn T. MicroRNAs as Novel Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and Modern Advancements in the Treatment. 2015. Biomedical Science Letters. 2015. 21:1-8. https://doi.org/10.15616/BSL.2015.21.1.1
  6. Hardy J, Allsop D. Amyloid deposition as the central event in the aetiology of Alzheimer's disease. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 1991. 12: 383-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-6147(91)90609-V
  7. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2016. 770-778.
  8. Lakhani P, Sundaram B. Deep learning at chest radiography: automated classification of pulmonary tuberculosis by using convolutional neural networks. Radiology. 2017. 284: 574-582. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162326
  9. Long J, Shelhamer E, Darrel T. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2015. 3431-3440.
  10. Lopresti BJ, Klunk WE, Mathis CA, Hoge JA, Ziolko SK, Lu X, Meltzer CC, Schimmel K, Tsopelas ND, DeKosky ST, Price JC. Simplified quantification of Pittzburgh Compound B amyloid imaging PET studies: a comparative analysis. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2005. 46: 1959-1972.
  11. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2011. 12: 2825-2830.
  12. Simonyan K, Zisserman A. Very Deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint. 2014. arXiv: 1409-1556.
  13. Snoek J, Larochelle H, Adams RP. Practical Bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithm. In Advances in Neural Information Processing System. 2012. 2951-2959.
  14. Taylor JC, Fenner JW. Comparison of machine learning and semiquantification algorithms for (I123) FP-CIT classification: the beginning of the end for semi-quantification?. EJNMMI Physics. 2017. 4: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-017-0196-1
  15. Varma S, Simon R. Bias in error estimation when using crossvalidation for model selection. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006. 7: 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-91