Validation, comparison, and combination of algorithms for automatic detection of pulmonary nodules in computed tomography images: the LUNA16 challenge
December 23, 2016 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Medical Image Anal.
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio, Alberto Traverso, Thomas de Bel, Moira S. N. Berens, Cas van den Bogaard, Piergiorgio Cerello, Hao Chen, Qi Dou, Maria Evelina Fantacci, Bram Geurts, Robbert van der Gugten, Pheng Ann Heng, Bart Jansen, Michael M. J. de Kaste, Valentin Kotov, Jack Yu-Hung Lin, Jeroen T. M. C. Manders, Alexander SΓ³nora-Mengana, Juan Carlos GarcΓa-Naranjo, Evgenia Papavasileiou, Mathias Prokop, Marco Saletta, Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop, Ernst T. Scholten, Luuk Scholten, Miranda M. Snoeren, Ernesto Lopez Torres, Jef Vandemeulebroucke, Nicole Walasek, Guido C. A. Zuidhof, Bram van Ginneken, Colin Jacobs
arXiv ID
1612.08012
Category
cs.CV: Computer Vision
Citations
1.2K
Venue
Medical Image Anal.
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Automatic detection of pulmonary nodules in thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans has been an active area of research for the last two decades. However, there have only been few studies that provide a comparative performance evaluation of different systems on a common database. We have therefore set up the LUNA16 challenge, an objective evaluation framework for automatic nodule detection algorithms using the largest publicly available reference database of chest CT scans, the LIDC-IDRI data set. In LUNA16, participants develop their algorithm and upload their predictions on 888 CT scans in one of the two tracks: 1) the complete nodule detection track where a complete CAD system should be developed, or 2) the false positive reduction track where a provided set of nodule candidates should be classified. This paper describes the setup of LUNA16 and presents the results of the challenge so far. Moreover, the impact of combining individual systems on the detection performance was also investigated. It was observed that the leading solutions employed convolutional networks and used the provided set of nodule candidates. The combination of these solutions achieved an excellent sensitivity of over 95% at fewer than 1.0 false positives per scan. This highlights the potential of combining algorithms to improve the detection performance. Our observer study with four expert readers has shown that the best system detects nodules that were missed by expert readers who originally annotated the LIDC-IDRI data. We released this set of additional nodules for further development of CAD systems.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Computer Vision
π
π
Old Age
π
π
Old Age
Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks
π
π
Old Age
SSD: Single Shot MultiBox Detector
π
π
Old Age
Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks
π
π
Old Age
Fast R-CNN
π
π
Old Age
Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted