Development, Validation, and Comparison of 2 Ultrasound Feature-Guided Machine Learning Models to Distinguish Cervical Lymphadenopathy.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Ultrasound Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000649
Rong Zhong, Yuegui Wang, Yifeng Chen, Qiuting Yang, Caiyun Yang, Congmeng Lin, Haolin Shen
{"title":"Development, Validation, and Comparison of 2 Ultrasound Feature-Guided Machine Learning Models to Distinguish Cervical Lymphadenopathy.","authors":"Rong Zhong, Yuegui Wang, Yifeng Chen, Qiuting Yang, Caiyun Yang, Congmeng Lin, Haolin Shen","doi":"10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>The objective of this study is to develop and validate the performance of 2 ultrasound (US) feature-guided machine learning models in distinguishing cervical lymphadenopathy. We enrolled 705 patients whose US characteristics of lymph nodes were collected at our hospital. B-mode US and color Doppler US features of cervical lymph nodes in both cohorts were analyzed by 2 radiologists. The decision tree and back propagation (BP) neural network were developed by combining clinical data (age, sex, and history of tumor) and US features. The performance of the 2 models was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), accuracy value, precision value, recall value, and balanced F score (F1 score). The AUC of the decision tree and BP model in the modeling cohort were 0.796 (0.757, 0.835) and 0.854 (0.756, 0.952), respectively. The AUC, accuracy value, precision value, recall value, and F1 score of the decision tree in the validation cohort were all higher than those of the BP model: 0.817 (0.786, 0.848) vs 0.674 (0.601, 0.747), 0.774 (0.737, 0.811) vs 0.702 (0.629, 0.775), 0.786 (0.739, 0.833) vs 0.644 (0.568, 0.720), 0.733 (0.694, 0.772) vs 0.630 (0.542, 0.718), and 0.750 (0.705, 0.795) vs 0.627 (0.541, 0.713), respectively. The US feature-guided decision tree model was more efficient in the diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy than the BP model.</p>","PeriodicalId":49116,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000649","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this study is to develop and validate the performance of 2 ultrasound (US) feature-guided machine learning models in distinguishing cervical lymphadenopathy. We enrolled 705 patients whose US characteristics of lymph nodes were collected at our hospital. B-mode US and color Doppler US features of cervical lymph nodes in both cohorts were analyzed by 2 radiologists. The decision tree and back propagation (BP) neural network were developed by combining clinical data (age, sex, and history of tumor) and US features. The performance of the 2 models was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), accuracy value, precision value, recall value, and balanced F score (F1 score). The AUC of the decision tree and BP model in the modeling cohort were 0.796 (0.757, 0.835) and 0.854 (0.756, 0.952), respectively. The AUC, accuracy value, precision value, recall value, and F1 score of the decision tree in the validation cohort were all higher than those of the BP model: 0.817 (0.786, 0.848) vs 0.674 (0.601, 0.747), 0.774 (0.737, 0.811) vs 0.702 (0.629, 0.775), 0.786 (0.739, 0.833) vs 0.644 (0.568, 0.720), 0.733 (0.694, 0.772) vs 0.630 (0.542, 0.718), and 0.750 (0.705, 0.795) vs 0.627 (0.541, 0.713), respectively. The US feature-guided decision tree model was more efficient in the diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy than the BP model.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发、验证和比较两种超声特征引导的机器学习模型,以区分颈淋巴腺病。
摘要:本研究旨在开发和验证两种超声(US)特征引导的机器学习模型在区分颈部淋巴结病方面的性能。我们招募了 705 名在本医院收集到淋巴结 US 特征的患者。由两名放射科医生对两个队列中宫颈淋巴结的 B 型 US 和彩色多普勒 US 特征进行分析。结合临床数据(年龄、性别和肿瘤病史)和 US 特征,建立了决策树和反向传播(BP)神经网络。通过计算接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、准确度值、精确度值、召回值和平衡 F 分数(F1 分数)来评估这两个模型的性能。在建模队列中,决策树模型和 BP 模型的 AUC 分别为 0.796 (0.757, 0.835) 和 0.854 (0.756, 0.952)。验证队列中决策树的 AUC 值、准确度值、精确度值、召回值和 F1 分数均高于血压模型的 AUC 值、准确度值、精确度值、召回值和 F1 分数:0.817(0.786,0.848)vs 0.674(0.601,0.747),0.774(0.737,0.811)vs 0.702(0.629,0.775),0.786(0.739,0.833)vs 0.644(0.568,0.720)、0.733(0.694,0.772)vs 0.630(0.542,0.718)和 0.750(0.705,0.795)vs 0.627(0.541,0.713)。在诊断颈部淋巴结病时,美国特征指导决策树模型比 BP 模型更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound Quarterly
Ultrasound Quarterly RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
105
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ultrasound Quarterly provides coverage of the newest, most sophisticated ultrasound techniques as well as in-depth analysis of important developments in this dynamic field. The journal publishes reviews of a wide variety of topics including trans-vaginal ultrasonography, detection of fetal anomalies, color Doppler flow imaging, pediatric ultrasonography, and breast sonography. Official Journal of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound
期刊最新文献
Objective Analysis of Predictive Value of Ultrasound Quantitative Scoring System for Treatment Method Selection in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy. Role of Combining Grayscale Findings With Superb Microvascular Imaging and Shear Wave Elastography in Standardization and Management of NON-MASS Breast Lesions. Nonvisualized Ovaries on Ultrasound: Correlation With Surgical Pathology. Reliability of a 2D-Panoramic Ultrasound System for the Determination of Muscle Volume in Older Hospitalized Patients. Pediatric Cranial Ultrasound Revisited: A Comprehensive Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1