Purpose:The development of computer-aided diagnostic ͑CAD͒ methods for lung nodule detection, classification, and quantitative assessment can be facilitated through a well-characterized repository of computed tomography ͑CT͒ scans. The Lung Image Database Consortium ͑LIDC͒ and Image Database Resource Initiative ͑IDRI͒ completed such a database, establishing a publicly available reference for the medical imaging research community. Initiated by the National Cancer Institute ͑NCI͒, further advanced by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health ͑FNIH͒, and accompanied by the Food and Drug Administration ͑FDA͒ through active participation, this public-private partnership demonstrates the success of a consortium founded on a consensus-based process. Methods: Seven academic centers and eight medical imaging companies collaborated to identify, address, and resolve challenging organizational, technical, and clinical issues to provide a solid foundation for a robust database. The LIDC/IDRI Database contains 1018 cases, each of which includes images from a clinical thoracic CT scan and an associated XML file that records the results of a two-phase image annotation process performed by four experienced thoracic radiologists. In the initial blinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed each CT scan and marked lesions belonging to one of three categories ͑"noduleՆ 3 mm," "noduleϽ 3 mm," and "non-noduleՆ 3 mm"͒. In the subsequent unblinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed their own marks along with the anonymized marks of the three other radiologists to render a final opinion. The goal of this process was to identify as completely as possible all lung nodules in each CT scan without requiring forced consensus. Results:The Database contains 7371 lesions marked "nodule" by at least one radiologist. 2669 of these lesions were marked "noduleՆ 3 mm" by at least one radiologist, of which 928 ͑34.7%͒ received such marks from all four radiologists. These 2669 lesions include nodule outlines and subjective nodule characteristic ratings. Conclusions:The LIDC/IDRI Database is expected to provide an essential medical imaging research resource to spur CAD development, validation, and dissemination in clinical practice.
Although culture-independent techniques have shown that the lungs are not sterile, little is known about the lung microbiome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used pyrosequencing of 16S amplicons to analyze the lung microbiome in two ways: first, using bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) to sample the distal bronchi and air-spaces; and second, by examining multiple discrete tissue sites in the lungs of six subjects removed at the time of transplantation. We performed BAL on three never-smokers (NS) with normal spirometry, seven smokers with normal spirometry (“heathy smokers”, HS), and four subjects with COPD (CS). Bacterial 16 s sequences were found in all subjects, without significant quantitative differences between groups. Both taxonomy-based and taxonomy-independent approaches disclosed heterogeneity in the bacterial communities between HS subjects that was similar to that seen in healthy NS and two mild COPD patients. The moderate and severe COPD patients had very limited community diversity, which was also noted in 28% of the healthy subjects. Both approaches revealed extensive membership overlap between the bacterial communities of the three study groups. No genera were common within a group but unique across groups. Our data suggests the existence of a core pulmonary bacterial microbiome that includes Pseudomonas, Streptococcus, Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Haemophilus, Veillonella, and Porphyromonas. Most strikingly, there were significant micro-anatomic differences in bacterial communities within the same lung of subjects with advanced COPD. These studies are further demonstration of the pulmonary microbiome and highlight global and micro-anatomic changes in these bacterial communities in severe COPD patients.
Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) for detecting tuberculosis (TB) on chest radiographs. Materials and Methods Four deidentified HIPAA-compliant datasets were used in this study that were exempted from review by the institutional review board, which consisted of 1007 posteroanterior chest radiographs. The datasets were split into training (68.0%), validation (17.1%), and test (14.9%). Two different DCNNs, AlexNet and GoogLeNet, were used to classify the images as having manifestations of pulmonary TB or as healthy. Both untrained and pretrained networks on ImageNet were used, and augmentation with multiple preprocessing techniques. Ensembles were performed on the best-performing algorithms. For cases where the classifiers were in disagreement, an independent board-certified cardiothoracic radiologist blindly interpreted the images to evaluate a potential radiologist-augmented workflow. Receiver operating characteristic curves and areas under the curve (AUCs) were used to assess model performance by using the DeLong method for statistical comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves. Results The best-performing classifier had an AUC of 0.99, which was an ensemble of the AlexNet and GoogLeNet DCNNs. The AUCs of the pretrained models were greater than that of the untrained models (P < .001). Augmenting the dataset further increased accuracy (P values for AlexNet and GoogLeNet were .03 and .02, respectively). The DCNNs had disagreement in 13 of the 150 test cases, which were blindly reviewed by a cardiothoracic radiologist, who correctly interpreted all 13 cases (100%). This radiologist-augmented approach resulted in a sensitivity of 97.3% and specificity 100%. Conclusion Deep learning with DCNNs can accurately classify TB at chest radiography with an AUC of 0.99. A radiologist-augmented approach for cases where there was disagreement among the classifiers further improved accuracy. RSNA, 2017.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.