↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of machine learning methods for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer from 18F-FDG PET/CT images

Overview of attention for article published in EJNMMI Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
patent
1 patent
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
331 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of machine learning methods for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer from 18F-FDG PET/CT images
Published in
EJNMMI Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13550-017-0260-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongkai Wang, Zongwei Zhou, Yingci Li, Zhonghua Chen, Peiou Lu, Wenzhi Wang, Wanyu Liu, Lijuan Yu

Abstract

This study aimed to compare one state-of-the-art deep learning method and four classical machine learning methods for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from (18)F-FDG PET/CT images. Another objective was to compare the discriminative power of the recently popular PET/CT texture features with the widely used diagnostic features such as tumor size, CT value, SUV, image contrast, and intensity standard deviation. The four classical machine learning methods included random forests, support vector machines, adaptive boosting, and artificial neural network. The deep learning method was the convolutional neural networks (CNN). The five methods were evaluated using 1397 lymph nodes collected from PET/CT images of 168 patients, with corresponding pathology analysis results as gold standard. The comparison was conducted using 10 times 10-fold cross-validation based on the criterion of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy (ACC), and area under the ROC curve (AUC). For each classical method, different input features were compared to select the optimal feature set. Based on the optimal feature set, the classical methods were compared with CNN, as well as with human doctors from our institute. For the classical methods, the diagnostic features resulted in 81~85% ACC and 0.87~0.92 AUC, which were significantly higher than the results of texture features. CNN's sensitivity, specificity, ACC, and AUC were 84, 88, 86, and 0.91, respectively. There was no significant difference between the results of CNN and the best classical method. The sensitivity, specificity, and ACC of human doctors were 73, 90, and 82, respectively. All the five machine learning methods had higher sensitivities but lower specificities than human doctors. The present study shows that the performance of CNN is not significantly different from the best classical methods and human doctors for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of NSCLC from PET/CT images. Because CNN does not need tumor segmentation or feature calculation, it is more convenient and more objective than the classical methods. However, CNN does not make use of the import diagnostic features, which have been proved more discriminative than the texture features for classifying small-sized lymph nodes. Therefore, incorporating the diagnostic features into CNN is a promising direction for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 331 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 331 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 17%
Student > Master 55 17%
Researcher 34 10%
Student > Bachelor 30 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 59 18%
Unknown 78 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 21%
Computer Science 58 18%
Engineering 35 11%
Physics and Astronomy 15 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Other 39 12%
Unknown 104 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,466,199
of 23,885,338 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Research
#58
of 585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,890
of 425,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Research
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,885,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 585 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them