Automated Detection of Poor-Quality Scintigraphic Images Using Machine Learning

Abstract

Objective In the present study, we have used machine learning algorithm to accomplish the task of automated detection of poor-quality scintigraphic images. We have validated the accuracy of our machine learning algorithm on ^99mTc-methyl diphosphonate (_99mTc-MDP) bone scan images.

Materials and Methods Ninety-nine patients underwent 99mTC-MDP bone scan acquisition twice at two different acquisition speeds, one at low speed and another at double the speed of the first scan, with patient lying in the same position on the scan table. The low-speed acquisition resulted in good-quality images and the high-speed acquisition resulted in poor-quality images. The principal component analysis (PCA) of all the images was performed and the first 32 principal components (PCs) were retained as feature vectors of the image. These 32 feature vectors of each image were used for the classification of images into poor or good quality using machine learning algorithm (multivariate adaptive regression splines [MARS]). The data were split into two sets, that is, training set and test set in the ratio of 60:40. Hyperparameter tuning of the model was done in which five-fold cross-validation was performed. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to select the optimal model using the largest value of area under the ROC curve. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the classification of poor- and good-quality images were taken as metrics for the performance of the algorithm.

Result Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the model in classifying poor-quality and good-quality images were 93.22, 93.22, and 93.22%, respectively, for the training dataset and 86.88, 80, and 93.7%, respectively, for the test dataset.

Conclusion Machine learning algorithms can be used to classify poor- and good-quality images with good accuracy (86.88%) using 32 PCs as the feature vector and MARS as the classification model.

Keywords

multivariate adaptive regression splines - number of principal components - classification of images - machine learning

Publication History

Article published online:
05 September 2022

• References

• 1 Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Image quality in nuclear medicine. In: Physics in Nuclear Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012
• 2 Uribe CF, Mathotaarachchi S, Gaudet V. et al. Machine learning in nuclear medicine: part 1—introduction. J Nucl Med 2019; 60 (04) 451-458
• 3 Zukotynski K, Gaudet V, Uribe CF. et al. Machine learning in nuclear medicine: part 2-neural networks and clinical aspects. J Nucl Med 2021; 62 (01) 22-29
• 4 Jolliffe IT. Principal components in regression analysis. In: Principal Component Analysis. New York, NY: Springer; 1986. :129–155
• 5 Friedman JH. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 1991; 19 (01) 1-67
• 6 Steinberg D, Colla PL, Kerry M. MARS User Guide. San Diego, CA: Salford Systems, 1999
• 7 Kuhn M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Softw 2008; 28 (05) 1-26
• 8 Crowther PS, Cox RJ. A method for optimal division of data sets for use in neural networks. In International conference on knowledge-based and intelligent information and engineering systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg: 2005;1–7
• 9 Dobbin KK, Simon RM. Optimally splitting cases for training and testing high dimensional classifiers. BMC Med Genomics 2011; 4 (01) 31
• 10 Rosenwald A, Wright G, Chan WC. et al; Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project. The use of molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (25) 1937-1947
• 11 Boer JM, Huber WK, Sültmann H. et al. Identification and classification of differentially expressed genes in renal cell carcinoma by expression profiling on a global human 31,500-element cDNA array. Genome Res 2001; 11 (11) 1861-1870
• 12 Golub TR, Slonim DK, Tamayo P. et al. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 1999; 286 (5439): 531-537
• 13 Sun L, Hui AM, Su Q. et al. Neuronal and glioma-derived stem cell factor induces angiogenesis within the brain. Cancer Cell 2006; 9 (04) 287-300
• 14 Campos GF, Mastelini SM, Aguiar GJ, Mantovani RG, de Melo LF, Barbon S. Machine learning hyperparameter selection for contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization. EURASIP J Image Video Process 2019; (01) 59
• 15 Chameroy V, Di Paola R. High compression of nuclear medicine dynamic studies. Int J Card Imaging 1990; 5 (04) 261-269
• 16 Nandi D, Ashour AS, Samanta S, Chakraborty S, Salem MA, Dey N. Principal component analysis in medical image processing: a study. International Journal of Image Mining. 2015; 1 (01) 65-86
• 17 Cho K, Kim WG, Kang H. et al. Classification of 18F-florbetaben amyloid brain PET image using PCA-SVM. Biomed Sci Lett 2019; 25 (01) 99-106
• 18 Moisen GG, Frescino TS. Comparing five modelling techniques for predicting forest characteristics. Ecol Modell 2002; 157 (2,3): 209-225
• 19 Delen D, Walker G, Kadam A. Predicting breast cancer survivability: a comparison of three data mining methods. Artif Intell Med 2005; 34 (02) 113-127
• 20 Stärk KD, Pfeiffer DU. The application of non-parametric techniques to solve classification problems in complex data sets in veterinary epidemiology–An example. Intell Data Anal 1999; 3 (01) 23-35
• 21 Colombet I, Ruelland A, Chatellier G, Gueyffier F, Degoulet P, Jaulent MC. Models to predict cardiovascular risk: comparison of CART, multilayer perceptron and logistic regression. In Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium 2000:156
• 22 Chae YM, Ho SH, Cho KW, Lee DH, Ji SH. Data mining approach to policy analysis in a health insurance domain. Int J Med Inform 2001; 62 (2,3): 103-111
• 23 Ture M, Kurt I, Kurum AT, Ozdamar K. Comparing classification techniques for predicting essential hypertension. Expert Syst Appl 2005; 29 (03) 583-588