探索通用模型与专用模型之间的权衡:基于中心的胶质母细胞瘤分割比较分析

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS International Journal of Medical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105604
F. Javier Gil-Terrón , Pablo Ferri , Víctor Montosa-i-Micó , María Gómez Mahiques , Carles Lopez-Mateu , Pau Martí , Juan M. García-Gómez , Elies Fuster-Garcia
{"title":"探索通用模型与专用模型之间的权衡:基于中心的胶质母细胞瘤分割比较分析","authors":"F. Javier Gil-Terrón ,&nbsp;Pablo Ferri ,&nbsp;Víctor Montosa-i-Micó ,&nbsp;María Gómez Mahiques ,&nbsp;Carles Lopez-Mateu ,&nbsp;Pau Martí ,&nbsp;Juan M. García-Gómez ,&nbsp;Elies Fuster-Garcia","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Inherent variations between inter-center data can undermine the robustness of segmentation models when applied at a specific center (dataset shift). We investigated whether specialized center-specific models are more effective compared to generalist models based on multi-center data, and how center-specific data could enhance the performance of generalist models within a particular center using a fine-tuning transfer learning approach. For this purpose, we studied the dataset shift at center level and conducted a comparative analysis to assess the impact of data source on glioblastoma segmentation models.</p></div><div><h3>Methods &amp; Materials</h3><p>The three key components of dataset shift were studied: prior probability shift—variations in tumor size or tissue distribution among centers; covariate shift—inter-center MRI alterations; and concept shift—different criteria for tumor segmentation. BraTS 2021 dataset was used, which includes 1251 cases from 23 centers. Thereafter, 155 deep-learning models were developed and compared, including 1) generalist models trained with multi-center data, 2) specialized models using only center-specific data, and 3) fine-tuned generalist models using center-specific data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The three key components of dataset shift were characterized. The amount of covariate shift was substantial, indicating large variations in MR imaging between different centers. Glioblastoma segmentation models tend to perform best when using data from the application center. Generalist models, trained with over 700 samples, achieved a median Dice score of 88.98%. Specialized models surpassed this with 200 cases, while fine-tuned models outperformed with 50 cases.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The influence of dataset shift on model performance is evident. Fine-tuned and specialized models, utilizing data from the evaluated center, outperform generalist models, which rely on data from other centers. These approaches could encourage medical centers to develop customized models for their local use, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of glioblastoma segmentation in a context where dataset shift is inevitable.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54950,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624002673/pdfft?md5=35645a5384badcc390d85f2158697875&pid=1-s2.0-S1386505624002673-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Trade-Off between generalist and specialized Models: A center-based comparative analysis for glioblastoma segmentation\",\"authors\":\"F. Javier Gil-Terrón ,&nbsp;Pablo Ferri ,&nbsp;Víctor Montosa-i-Micó ,&nbsp;María Gómez Mahiques ,&nbsp;Carles Lopez-Mateu ,&nbsp;Pau Martí ,&nbsp;Juan M. García-Gómez ,&nbsp;Elies Fuster-Garcia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Inherent variations between inter-center data can undermine the robustness of segmentation models when applied at a specific center (dataset shift). We investigated whether specialized center-specific models are more effective compared to generalist models based on multi-center data, and how center-specific data could enhance the performance of generalist models within a particular center using a fine-tuning transfer learning approach. For this purpose, we studied the dataset shift at center level and conducted a comparative analysis to assess the impact of data source on glioblastoma segmentation models.</p></div><div><h3>Methods &amp; Materials</h3><p>The three key components of dataset shift were studied: prior probability shift—variations in tumor size or tissue distribution among centers; covariate shift—inter-center MRI alterations; and concept shift—different criteria for tumor segmentation. BraTS 2021 dataset was used, which includes 1251 cases from 23 centers. Thereafter, 155 deep-learning models were developed and compared, including 1) generalist models trained with multi-center data, 2) specialized models using only center-specific data, and 3) fine-tuned generalist models using center-specific data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The three key components of dataset shift were characterized. The amount of covariate shift was substantial, indicating large variations in MR imaging between different centers. Glioblastoma segmentation models tend to perform best when using data from the application center. Generalist models, trained with over 700 samples, achieved a median Dice score of 88.98%. Specialized models surpassed this with 200 cases, while fine-tuned models outperformed with 50 cases.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The influence of dataset shift on model performance is evident. Fine-tuned and specialized models, utilizing data from the evaluated center, outperform generalist models, which rely on data from other centers. These approaches could encourage medical centers to develop customized models for their local use, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of glioblastoma segmentation in a context where dataset shift is inevitable.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Medical Informatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624002673/pdfft?md5=35645a5384badcc390d85f2158697875&pid=1-s2.0-S1386505624002673-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Medical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624002673\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624002673","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介当应用于特定中心(数据集转移)时,中心间数据的固有差异会削弱分割模型的稳健性。我们研究了特定中心的专业模型是否比基于多中心数据的通用模型更有效,以及特定中心的数据如何利用微调迁移学习方法提高特定中心内通用模型的性能。为此,我们研究了中心层面的数据集转移,并进行了比较分析,以评估数据源对胶质母细胞瘤分割模型的影响:我们研究了数据集移动的三个关键组成部分:先验概率移动--中心间肿瘤大小或组织分布的变化;协变量移动--中心间核磁共振成像的改变;概念移动--肿瘤分割标准的不同。BraTS 2021 数据集包括来自 23 个中心的 1251 个病例。之后,开发了155个深度学习模型并进行了比较,其中包括:1)使用多中心数据训练的通用模型;2)仅使用特定中心数据的专业模型;3)使用特定中心数据的微调通用模型:结果:数据集偏移的三个关键部分都有特征。协变量偏移量很大,表明不同中心之间的磁共振成像差异很大。胶质母细胞瘤分割模型在使用应用中心的数据时往往表现最佳。使用 700 多个样本训练的通用模型的中位 Dice 得分为 88.98%。专业模型在使用 200 个案例时超过了这一水平,而微调模型在使用 50 个案例时表现更好:结论:数据集转移对模型性能的影响显而易见。结论:数据集转移对模型性能的影响显而易见。利用被评估中心数据的微调模型和专业模型优于依靠其他中心数据的通用模型。这些方法可以鼓励医疗中心开发适合本地使用的定制模型,在数据集迁移不可避免的情况下提高胶质母细胞瘤分割的准确性和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Exploring the Trade-Off between generalist and specialized Models: A center-based comparative analysis for glioblastoma segmentation

Introduction

Inherent variations between inter-center data can undermine the robustness of segmentation models when applied at a specific center (dataset shift). We investigated whether specialized center-specific models are more effective compared to generalist models based on multi-center data, and how center-specific data could enhance the performance of generalist models within a particular center using a fine-tuning transfer learning approach. For this purpose, we studied the dataset shift at center level and conducted a comparative analysis to assess the impact of data source on glioblastoma segmentation models.

Methods & Materials

The three key components of dataset shift were studied: prior probability shift—variations in tumor size or tissue distribution among centers; covariate shift—inter-center MRI alterations; and concept shift—different criteria for tumor segmentation. BraTS 2021 dataset was used, which includes 1251 cases from 23 centers. Thereafter, 155 deep-learning models were developed and compared, including 1) generalist models trained with multi-center data, 2) specialized models using only center-specific data, and 3) fine-tuned generalist models using center-specific data.

Results

The three key components of dataset shift were characterized. The amount of covariate shift was substantial, indicating large variations in MR imaging between different centers. Glioblastoma segmentation models tend to perform best when using data from the application center. Generalist models, trained with over 700 samples, achieved a median Dice score of 88.98%. Specialized models surpassed this with 200 cases, while fine-tuned models outperformed with 50 cases.

Conclusions

The influence of dataset shift on model performance is evident. Fine-tuned and specialized models, utilizing data from the evaluated center, outperform generalist models, which rely on data from other centers. These approaches could encourage medical centers to develop customized models for their local use, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of glioblastoma segmentation in a context where dataset shift is inevitable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Medical Informatics
International Journal of Medical Informatics 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.10%
发文量
217
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: International Journal of Medical Informatics provides an international medium for dissemination of original results and interpretative reviews concerning the field of medical informatics. The Journal emphasizes the evaluation of systems in healthcare settings. The scope of journal covers: Information systems, including national or international registration systems, hospital information systems, departmental and/or physician''s office systems, document handling systems, electronic medical record systems, standardization, systems integration etc.; Computer-aided medical decision support systems using heuristic, algorithmic and/or statistical methods as exemplified in decision theory, protocol development, artificial intelligence, etc. Educational computer based programs pertaining to medical informatics or medicine in general; Organizational, economic, social, clinical impact, ethical and cost-benefit aspects of IT applications in health care.
期刊最新文献
Application of the openEHR reference model for PGHD: A case study on the DH-Convener initiative Tracking provenance in clinical data warehouses for quality management Acute myocardial infarction risk prediction in emergency chest pain patients: An external validation study Healthcare professionals’ cross-organizational access to electronic health records: A scoping review Cross-modal similar clinical case retrieval using a modular model based on contrastive learning and k-nearest neighbor search
×
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