Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 7/2019

01-07-2019 | Colorectal Cancer | Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Deep learning for liver tumor diagnosis part II: convolutional neural network interpretation using radiologic imaging features

Authors: Clinton J. Wang, Charlie A. Hamm, Lynn J. Savic, Marc Ferrante, Isabel Schobert, Todd Schlachter, MingDe Lin, Jeffrey C. Weinreb, James S. Duncan, Julius Chapiro, Brian Letzen

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To develop a proof-of-concept “interpretable” deep learning prototype that justifies aspects of its predictions from a pre-trained hepatic lesion classifier.

Methods

A convolutional neural network (CNN) was engineered and trained to classify six hepatic tumor entities using 494 lesions on multi-phasic MRI, described in Part 1. A subset of each lesion class was labeled with up to four key imaging features per lesion. A post hoc algorithm inferred the presence of these features in a test set of 60 lesions by analyzing activation patterns of the pre-trained CNN model. Feature maps were generated that highlight regions in the original image that correspond to particular features. Additionally, relevance scores were assigned to each identified feature, denoting the relative contribution of a feature to the predicted lesion classification.

Results

The interpretable deep learning system achieved 76.5% positive predictive value and 82.9% sensitivity in identifying the correct radiological features present in each test lesion. The model misclassified 12% of lesions. Incorrect features were found more often in misclassified lesions than correctly identified lesions (60.4% vs. 85.6%). Feature maps were consistent with original image voxels contributing to each imaging feature. Feature relevance scores tended to reflect the most prominent imaging criteria for each class.

Conclusions

This interpretable deep learning system demonstrates proof of principle for illuminating portions of a pre-trained deep neural network’s decision-making, by analyzing inner layers and automatically describing features contributing to predictions.

Key Points

• An interpretable deep learning system prototype can explain aspects of its decision-making by identifying relevant imaging features and showing where these features are found on an image, facilitating clinical translation.
• By providing feedback on the importance of various radiological features in performing differential diagnosis, interpretable deep learning systems have the potential to interface with standardized reporting systems such as LI-RADS, validating ancillary features and improving clinical practicality.
• An interpretable deep learning system could potentially add quantitative data to radiologic reports and serve radiologists with evidence-based decision support.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Chartrand G, Cheng PM, Vorontsov E et al (2017) Deep learning: a primer for radiologists. Radiographics 37:2113–2131CrossRefPubMed Chartrand G, Cheng PM, Vorontsov E et al (2017) Deep learning: a primer for radiologists. Radiographics 37:2113–2131CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Anthimopoulos M, Christodoulidis S, Ebner L, Christe A, Mougiakakou S (2016) Lung pattern classification for interstitial lung diseases using a deep convolutional neural network. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1207–1216CrossRefPubMed Anthimopoulos M, Christodoulidis S, Ebner L, Christe A, Mougiakakou S (2016) Lung pattern classification for interstitial lung diseases using a deep convolutional neural network. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1207–1216CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Greenspan H, Van Ginneken B, Summers RM (2016) Guest editorial deep learning in medical imaging: overview and future promise of an exciting new technique. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1153–1159CrossRef Greenspan H, Van Ginneken B, Summers RM (2016) Guest editorial deep learning in medical imaging: overview and future promise of an exciting new technique. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1153–1159CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Olden JD, Jackson DA (2002) Illuminating the “black box”: a randomization approach for understanding variable contributions in artificial neural networks. Ecol Model 154:135–150CrossRef Olden JD, Jackson DA (2002) Illuminating the “black box”: a randomization approach for understanding variable contributions in artificial neural networks. Ecol Model 154:135–150CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kiczales G (1996) Beyond the black box: open implementation. IEEE Softw 13(8):10–11 Kiczales G (1996) Beyond the black box: open implementation. IEEE Softw 13(8):10–11
8.
go back to reference Dayhoff JE, DeLeo JM (2001) Artificial neural networks: opening the black box. Cancer 91:1615–1635CrossRefPubMed Dayhoff JE, DeLeo JM (2001) Artificial neural networks: opening the black box. Cancer 91:1615–1635CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Corwin MT, Lee AY, Fananapazir G, Loehfelm TW, Sarkar S, Sirlin CB (2018) Nonstandardized terminology to describe focal liver lesions in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: implications regarding clinical communication. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:85–90CrossRefPubMed Corwin MT, Lee AY, Fananapazir G, Loehfelm TW, Sarkar S, Sirlin CB (2018) Nonstandardized terminology to describe focal liver lesions in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: implications regarding clinical communication. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:85–90CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 61:1056–1065CrossRefPubMed Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 61:1056–1065CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Mitchell DG, Bashir MR, Sirlin CB (2018) Management implications and outcomes of LI-RADS-2, -3, -4, and -M category observations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:143–148CrossRef Mitchell DG, Bashir MR, Sirlin CB (2018) Management implications and outcomes of LI-RADS-2, -3, -4, and -M category observations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:143–148CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Barth B, Donati O, Fischer M et al (2016) Reliability, validity, and reader acceptance of LI-RADS-an in-depth analysis. Acad Radiol 23:1145CrossRefPubMed Barth B, Donati O, Fischer M et al (2016) Reliability, validity, and reader acceptance of LI-RADS-an in-depth analysis. Acad Radiol 23:1145CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Liu PS et al (2014) Repeatability of diagnostic features and scoring systems for hepatocellular carcinoma by using MR imaging. Radiology 272:132CrossRefPubMed Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Liu PS et al (2014) Repeatability of diagnostic features and scoring systems for hepatocellular carcinoma by using MR imaging. Radiology 272:132CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ehman EC, Behr SC, Umetsu SE et al (2016) Rate of observation and inter-observer agreement for LI-RADS major features at CT and MRI in 184 pathology proven hepatocellular carcinomas. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:963–969CrossRefPubMedCentral Ehman EC, Behr SC, Umetsu SE et al (2016) Rate of observation and inter-observer agreement for LI-RADS major features at CT and MRI in 184 pathology proven hepatocellular carcinomas. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:963–969CrossRefPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X et al (2016) Classifying CT/MR findings in patients with suspicion of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of liver imaging reporting and data system and criteria-free Likert scale reporting models. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:373–383CrossRefPubMed Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X et al (2016) Classifying CT/MR findings in patients with suspicion of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of liver imaging reporting and data system and criteria-free Likert scale reporting models. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:373–383CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Bashir M, Huang R, Mayes N et al (2015) Concordance of hypervascular liver nodule characterization between the organ procurement and transplant network and liver imaging reporting and data system classifications. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:305CrossRefPubMed Bashir M, Huang R, Mayes N et al (2015) Concordance of hypervascular liver nodule characterization between the organ procurement and transplant network and liver imaging reporting and data system classifications. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:305CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Fowler KJ, Tang A, Santillan C et al (2018) Interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2014 algorithm and imaging features for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a large international multireader study. Radiology 286:173–185CrossRefPubMed Fowler KJ, Tang A, Santillan C et al (2018) Interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2014 algorithm and imaging features for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a large international multireader study. Radiology 286:173–185CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Sirlin CB, Kielar AZ, Tang A, Bashir MR (2018) LI-RADS: a glimpse into the future. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:231–236CrossRef Sirlin CB, Kielar AZ, Tang A, Bashir MR (2018) LI-RADS: a glimpse into the future. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:231–236CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Fisher A, Rudin C, Dominici F (2018) Model class reliance: variable importance measures for any machine learning model class, from the “Rashomon” perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:180101489 Fisher A, Rudin C, Dominici F (2018) Model class reliance: variable importance measures for any machine learning model class, from the “Rashomon” perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:180101489
25.
go back to reference Federle MP, Jeffrey RB, Woodward PJ, Borhani A (2009) Diagnostic imaging: abdomen. Published by Amirsys. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Federle MP, Jeffrey RB, Woodward PJ, Borhani A (2009) Diagnostic imaging: abdomen. Published by Amirsys. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
27.
go back to reference Everitt BS (2002) The Cambridge dictionary of statistics. Cambridge University Press Everitt BS (2002) The Cambridge dictionary of statistics. Cambridge University Press
28.
go back to reference Koh PW, Liang P (2017) Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. AarXiv preprint arXiv:170304730 Koh PW, Liang P (2017) Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. AarXiv preprint arXiv:170304730
29.
go back to reference Narsinh KH, Cui J, Papadatos D, Sirlin CB, Santillan CS (2018) Hepatocarcinogenesis and LI-RADS. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:158–168CrossRef Narsinh KH, Cui J, Papadatos D, Sirlin CB, Santillan CS (2018) Hepatocarcinogenesis and LI-RADS. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:158–168CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Tang A, Bashir MR, Corwin MT et al (2018) Evidence supporting LI-RADS major features for CT- and MR imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiology 286:29–48CrossRefPubMed Tang A, Bashir MR, Corwin MT et al (2018) Evidence supporting LI-RADS major features for CT- and MR imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiology 286:29–48CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Holzinger A, Biemann C, Pattichis CS, Kell DB (2017) What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain? arXiv preprint arXiv:171209923 Holzinger A, Biemann C, Pattichis CS, Kell DB (2017) What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain? arXiv preprint arXiv:171209923
Metadata
Title
Deep learning for liver tumor diagnosis part II: convolutional neural network interpretation using radiologic imaging features
Authors
Clinton J. Wang
Charlie A. Hamm
Lynn J. Savic
Marc Ferrante
Isabel Schobert
Todd Schlachter
MingDe Lin
Jeffrey C. Weinreb
James S. Duncan
Julius Chapiro
Brian Letzen
Publication date
01-07-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06214-8

Other articles of this Issue 7/2019

European Radiology 7/2019 Go to the issue