English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: Radiomics and deep transfer learning are two popular technologies used to develop computer-aided detection and diagnosis (CAD) schemes of medical images. This study aims to investigate and to compare the advantages and the potential limitations of applying these two technologies in developing CAD schemes. Methods: A relatively large and diverse retrospective dataset including 3000 digital mammograms was assembled in which 1496 images depicted malignant lesions and 1504 images depicted benign lesions. Two CAD schemes were developed to classify breast lesions. The first scheme was developed using four steps namely, applying an adaptive multi-layer topographic region growing algorithm to segment lesions, computing initial radiomics features, applying a principal component algorithm to generate an optimal feature vector, and building a support vector machine classifier. The second CAD scheme was built based on a pre-trained residual net architecture (ResNet50) as a transfer learning model to classify breast lesions. Both CAD schemes were trained and tested using a 10-fold cross-validation method. Several score fusion methods were also investigated to classify breast lesions. CAD performances were evaluated and compared by the areas under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: The ResNet50 model-based CAD scheme yielded AUC = 0.85 ± 0.02, which was significantly higher than the radiomics feature-based CAD scheme with AUC = 0.77 ± 0.02 (p &lt; 0.01). Additionally, the fusion of classification scores generated by the two CAD schemes did not further improve classification performance. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that using deep transfer learning is more efficient to develop CAD schemes and it enables a higher lesion classification performance than CAD schemes developed using radiomics-based technology.

A Comparison of Computer-Aided Diagnosis Schemes Optimized Using Radiomics and Deep Transfer Learning Methods