Convolutional neural network based automatic plaque characterization from intracoronary optical coherence tomography images
Authors:
Shenghua He,
Jie Zheng,
Akiko Maehara,
Gary Mintz,
Dalin Tang,
Mark Anastasio,
Hua Li
Abstract:
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) can provide high-resolution cross-sectional images for analyzing superficial plaques in coronary arteries. Commonly, plaque characterization using intra-coronary OCT images is performed manually by expert observers. This manual analysis is time consuming and its accuracy heavily relies on the experience of human observers. Traditional machine learning based metho…
▽ More
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) can provide high-resolution cross-sectional images for analyzing superficial plaques in coronary arteries. Commonly, plaque characterization using intra-coronary OCT images is performed manually by expert observers. This manual analysis is time consuming and its accuracy heavily relies on the experience of human observers. Traditional machine learning based methods, such as the least squares support vector machine and random forest methods, have been recently employed to automatically characterize plaque regions in OCT images. Several processing steps, including feature extraction, informative feature selection, and final pixel classification, are commonly used in these traditional methods. Therefore, the final classification accuracy can be jeopardized by error or inaccuracy within each of these steps. In this study, we proposed a convolutional neural network (CNN) based method to automatically characterize plaques in OCT images. Unlike traditional methods, our method uses the image as a direct input and performs classification as a single-step process. The experiments on 269 OCT images showed that the average prediction accuracy of CNN-based method was 0.866, which indicated a great promise for clinical translation.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2018;
originally announced July 2018.
How Cox models react to a study-specific confounder in a patient-level pooled dataset: Random-effects better cope with an imbalanced covariate across trials unless baseline hazards differ
Authors:
Thomas McAndrew,
Bjorn Redfors,
Aaron Crowley,
Yiran Zhang,
Shmuel Chen,
Mordechai Golomb,
Maria Alu,
Dominic Francese,
Ori Ben-Yehuda,
Akiko Maehara,
Gary Mintz,
Gregg Stone,
Paul Jenkins
Abstract:
Combining patient-level data from clinical trials can connect rare phenomena with clinical endpoints, but statistical techniques applied to a single trial may become problematical when trials are pooled. Estimating the hazard of a binary variable unevenly distributed across trials showcases a common pooled database issue.
We studied how an unevenly distributed binary variable can compromise the…
▽ More
Combining patient-level data from clinical trials can connect rare phenomena with clinical endpoints, but statistical techniques applied to a single trial may become problematical when trials are pooled. Estimating the hazard of a binary variable unevenly distributed across trials showcases a common pooled database issue.
We studied how an unevenly distributed binary variable can compromise the integrity of fixed and random effects Cox proportional hazards models.
We compared fixed effect and random effects Cox proportional hazards models on a set of simulated datasets inspired by a 17-trial pooled database of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
An unevenly distributed covariate can bias hazard ratio estimates, inflate standard errors, raise type I error, and reduce power. While uneveness causes problems for all Cox proportional hazards models, random effects suffer least. Compared to fixed effect models, random effects suffer lower bias and trade inflated type I errors for improved power. Contrasting hazard rates between trials prevent accurate estimates from both fixed and random effects models.
When modeling a covariate unevenly distributed across pooled trials with similar baseline hazard rates, Cox proportional hazards models with a random trial effect more accurately estimate hazard ratios than fixed effects. Differing between-trial baseline hazard rates bias both random and fixed effect models. With an unevenly-distributed covariate and similar baseline hazard rates across trials, a random effects Cox proportional hazards model outperforms a fixed effect model, but cannot overcome contrasting baseline hazard rates.
△ Less
Submitted 7 May, 2018;
originally announced May 2018.
