Source author record

Michael R. Savona

Michael R. Savona appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Outlier Guided Optimization of Abdominal Segmentation

Abdominal multi-organ segmentation of computed tomography (CT) images has been the subject of extensive research interest. It presents a substantial challenge in medical image processing, as the shape and distribution of abdominal organs can vary greatly among the population and within an individual over time. While continuous integration of novel datasets into the training set provides potential for better segmentation performance, collection of data at scale is not only costly, but also impractical in some contexts. Moreover, it remains unclear what marginal value additional data have to offer. Herein, we propose a single-pass active learning method through human quality assurance (QA). We built on a pre-trained 3D U-Net model for abdominal multi-organ segmentation and augmented the dataset either with outlier data (e.g., exemplars for which the baseline algorithm failed) or inliers (e.g., exemplars for which the baseline algorithm worked). The new models were trained using the augmented datasets with 5-fold cross-validation (for outlier data) and withheld outlier samples (for inlier data). Manual labeling of outliers increased Dice scores with outliers by 0.130, compared to an increase of 0.067 with inliers (p<0.001, two-tailed paired t-test). By adding 5 to 37 inliers or outliers to training, we find that the marginal value of adding outliers is higher than that of adding inliers. In summary, improvement on single-organ performance was obtained without diminishing multi-organ performance or significantly increasing training time. Hence, identification and correction of baseline failure cases present an effective and efficient method of selecting training data to improve algorithm performance.

preprint2020arXiv

Validation and Optimization of Multi-Organ Segmentation on Clinical Imaging Archives

Segmentation of abdominal computed tomography(CT) provides spatial context, morphological properties, and a framework for tissue-specific radiomics to guide quantitative Radiological assessment. A 2015 MICCAI challenge spurred substantial innovation in multi-organ abdominal CT segmentation with both traditional and deep learning methods. Recent innovations in deep methods have driven performance toward levels for which clinical translation is appealing. However, continued cross-validation on open datasets presents the risk of indirect knowledge contamination and could result in circular reasoning. Moreover, 'real world' segmentations can be challenging due to the wide variability of abdomen physiology within patients. Herein, we perform two data retrievals to capture clinically acquired deidentified abdominal CT cohorts with respect to a recently published variation on 3D U-Net (baseline algorithm). First, we retrieved 2004 deidentified studies on 476 patients with diagnosis codes involving spleen abnormalities (cohort A). Second, we retrieved 4313 deidentified studies on 1754 patients without diagnosis codes involving spleen abnormalities (cohort B). We perform prospective evaluation of the existing algorithm on both cohorts, yielding 13% and 8% failure rate, respectively. Then, we identified 51 subjects in cohort A with segmentation failures and manually corrected the liver and gallbladder labels. We re-trained the model adding the manual labels, resulting in performance improvement of 9% and 6% failure rate for the A and B cohorts, respectively. In summary, the performance of the baseline on the prospective cohorts was similar to that on previously published datasets. Moreover, adding data from the first cohort substantively improved performance when evaluated on the second withheld validation cohort.