Image segmentations produced by BAMF under the AIMI Annotations initiative

arXiv (Cornell University) · 2024 · 369 citations

• Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical physics

The Imaging Data Commons (IDC)(https://imaging.datacommons.cancer.gov/) [1] connects researchers with publicly available cancer imaging data, often linked with other types of cancer data. Many of the collections have limited annotations due to the expense and effort required to create these manually. The increased capabilities of AI analysis of radiology images provide an opportunity to augment existing IDC collections with new annotation data. To further this goal, we trained several nnUNet [2] based models for a variety of radiology segmentation tasks from public datasets and used them to generate segmentations for IDC collections. To validate the model's performance, roughly 10% of the AI predictions were assigned to a validation set. For this set, a board-certified radiologist graded the quality of AI predictions on a Likert scale. If they did not 'strongly agree' with the AI output, the reviewer corrected the segmentation. This record provides the AI segmentations, Manually corrected segmentations, and Manual scores for the inspected IDC Collection images. Only 10% of the AI-derived annotations provided in this dataset are verified by expert radiologists . More details, on model training and annotations are provided within the associated manuscript to ensure transparency and reproducibility. This work was done in two stages. Versions 1.x of this record were from the first stage. Versions 2.x added additional records. In the Version 1.x collections, a medical student (non-expert) reviewed all the AI predictions and rated them on a 5-point Likert Scale, for any AI predictions in the validation set that they did not 'strongly agree' with, the non-expert provided corrected segmentations. This non-expert was not utilized for the Version 2.x additional records. Likert Score Definition: Guidelines for reviewers to grade the quality of AI segmentations. 5 Strongly Agree - Use-as-is (i.e., clinically acceptable, and could be used for treatment without change) 4 Agree - Minor edits that are not necessary. Stylistic differences, but not clinically important. The current segmentation is acceptable 3 Neither agree nor disagree - Minor edits that are necessary. Minor edits are those that the review judges can be made in less time than starting from scratch or are expected to have minimal effect on treatment outcome 2 Disagree - Major edits. This category indicates that the necessary edit is required to ensure correctness, and sufficiently significant that user would prefer to start from the scratch 1 Strongly disagree - Unusable. This category indicates that the quality of the automatic annotations is so bad that they are unusable. Zip File Folder Structure Each zip file in the collection correlates to a specific segmentation task. The common folder structure is ai-segmentations-dcm This directory contains the AI model predictions in DICOM-SEG format for all analyzed IDC collection files qa-segmentations-dcm This directory contains manual corrected segmentation files, based on the AI prediction, in DICOM-SEG format. Only a fraction, ~10%, of the AI predictions were corrected. Corrections were performed by radiologist (rad*) and non-experts (ne*) qa-results.csv CSV file linking the study/series UIDs with the ai segmentation file, radiologist corrected segmentation file, radiologist ratings of AI performance. qa-results.csv Columns The qa-results.csv file contains metadata about the segmentations, their related IDC case image, as well as the Likert ratings and comments by the reviewers. Column Description Collection The name of the IDC collection for this case PatientID PatientID in DICOM metadata of scan. Also called Case ID in the IDC StudyInstanceUID StudyInstanceUID in the DICOM metadata of the scan SeriesInstanceUID SeriesInstanceUID in the DICOM metadata of the scan Validation true/false if this scan was manually reviewed Reviewer Coded ID of the reviewer. Radiologist IDs start with ‘rad’ non-expect IDs start with ‘ne’ AimiProjectYear 2023 or 2024, This work was split over two years. The main methodology difference between the two is that in 2023, a non-expert also reviewed the AI output, but a non-expert was not utilized in 2024. AISegmentation The filename of the AI prediction file in DICOM-seg format. This file is in the ai-segmentations-dcm folder. CorrectedSegmentation The filename of the reviewer-corrected prediction file in DICOM-seg format. This file is in the qa-segmentations-dcm folder. If the reviewer strongly agreed with the AI for all segments, they did not provide any correction file. Was the AI predicted ROIs accurate? This column appears one for each segment in the task for images from AimiProjectYear 2023. The reviewer rates segmentation quality on a Likert scale. In tasks that have multiple labels in the output, there is only one rating to cover them all. Was the AI predicted {SEGMENT_NAME} label accurate? This column appears one for each segment in the task for images from AimiProjectYear 2024. The reviewer rates each segment for its quality on a Likert scale. Do you have any comments about the AI predicted ROIs? Open ended question for the reviewer Do you have any comments about the findings from the study scans? Open ended question for the reviewer File Overview brain-mr.zip Segment Description: brain tumor regions: necrosis, edema, enhancing IDC Collection: UPENN-GBM Links: model weights, github breast-fdg-pet-ct.zip Segment Description: FDG-avid lesions in breast from FDG PET/CT scans QIN-Breast IDC Collection: QIN-Breast Links: model weights, github breast-mr.zip Segment Description: Breast, Fibroglandular tissue, structural tumor IDC Collection: duke-breast-cancer-mri Links: model weights, github kidney-ct.zip Segment Description: Kidney, Tumor, and Cysts from contrast enhanced CT scans IDS Collection: TCGA-KIRC, TCGA-KIRP, TCGA-KICH, CPTAC-CCRCC Links: model weights, github liver-ct.zip Segment Description: Liver from CT scans IDC Collection: TCGA-LIHC Links: model weights, github liver2-ct.zip Segment Description: Liver and Lesions from CT scans IDC Collection: HCC-TACE-SEG, COLORECTAL-LIVER-METASTASES Links: model weights, github liver-mr.zip Segment Description: Liver from T1 MRI scans IDC Collection: TCGA-LIHC Links: model weights, github lung-ct.zip Segment Description: Lung and Nodules (3mm-30mm) from CT scans IDC Collections: Anti-PD-1-Lung LUNG-PET-CT-Dx NSCLC Radiogenomics RIDER Lung PET-CT TCGA-LUAD TCGA-LUSC Links: model weights 1, model weights 2, github lung2-ct.zip Improved model version Segment Description: Lung and Nodules (3mm-30mm) from CT scans IDC Collections: QIN-LUNG-CT, SPIE-AAPM Lung CT Challenge Links: model weights, github lung-fdg-pet-ct.zip Segment Description: Lungs and FDG-avid lesions in the lung from FDG PET/CT scans IDC Collections: ACRIN-NSCLC-FDG-PET Anti-PD-1-Lung LUNG-PET-CT-Dx NSCLC Radiogenomics RIDER Lung PET-CT TCGA-LUAD TCGA-LUSC Links: model weights, github prostate-mr.zip Segment Description: Prostate from T2 MRI scans IDC Collection: ProstateX, Prostate-MRI-US-Biopsy Links: model weights, github Changelog 2.0.2 - Fix the brain-mr segmentations to be transformed correctly 2.0.1 - added AIMI 2024 radiologist comments to qa-results.csv 2.0.0 - added AIMI 2024 segmentations 1.X - AIMI 2023 segmentations and reviewer scores

Federated learning enables big data for rare cancer boundary detection

Nature Communications · 2022 · 326 citations

• Computer Science
• Computer Science
• Machine Learning

Although machine learning (ML) has shown promise across disciplines, out-of-sample generalizability is concerning. This is currently addressed by sharing multi-site data, but such centralization is challenging/infeasible to scale due to various limitations. Federated ML (FL) provides an alternative paradigm for accurate and generalizable ML, by only sharing numerical model updates. Here we present the largest FL study to-date, involving data from 71 sites across 6 continents, to generate an automatic tumor boundary detector for the rare disease of glioblastoma, reporting the largest such dataset in the literature (n = 6, 314). We demonstrate a 33% delineation improvement for the surgically targetable tumor, and 23% for the complete tumor extent, over a publicly trained model. We anticipate our study to: 1) enable more healthcare studies informed by large diverse data, ensuring meaningful results for rare diseases and underrepresented populations, 2) facilitate further analyses for glioblastoma by releasing our consensus model, and 3) demonstrate the FL effectiveness at such scale and task-complexity as a paradigm shift for multi-site collaborations, alleviating the need for data-sharing.