深度学习技术识别纱布在腹腔镜胰腺手术中的应用价值

Application value of machine learning algorithms for gauze detection in laparoscopic pan-creatic surgery

  • 摘要:
    目的 探讨深度学习技术识别纱布在腹腔镜胰腺手术中的应用价值。
    方法 采用回顾性描述性研究方法。收集2017年7月至2020年7月中国医学科学院北京协和医院保存完整的80个腹腔镜胰腺手术视频资料,按随机数方法以3∶1比例分为训练集61个视频与测试集19个视频。训练集用于训练神经网络模型,测试集用于测试不同难度场景下神经网络识别纱布的能力。由两位医师筛选出包含纱布的视频片段,根据纱布识别难度分为简单、正常、困难3类场景。标注人员在手术视频中逐帧标注纱布真值框。所有图像经过归一化、预处理后输入神经网络模型进行训练。神经网络输出纱布预测框,若与真值框重合的交并比>0.5则判定为预测正确。观察指标:(1)视频标注及分类情况。(2)测试集神经网络测试结果。计数资料以绝对数或百分比表示。
    结果 (1)视频标注及分类情况:80个视频共26 893帧图像完成标注工作。其中训练集61个视频片段共22 564帧图像,测试集19个视频片段共4 329帧图像。训练集19个视频中5 791帧图为简单难度场景,38个视频中15 771帧图为正常难度场景,4个视频中1 002帧图为困难难度场景。测试集4个视频中1 684帧图为简单难度场景,6个视频中1 016帧图为正常难度场景,9个视频中1 629帧图为困难难度场景。(2)测试集神经网络测试结果:神经网络模型对总体测试集中纱布识别的灵敏度和精确率分别为78.471%(3 397/4 329)和69.811%(3 397/4 866),对简单难度测试集中纱布识别的灵敏度和精确率分别为94.478%(1 591/1 684)和83.168%(1 591/1 913),对正常难度测试集中纱布识别的灵敏度和精确率分别为80.413%(817/1 016)和70.859%(817/1 153),对困难难度测试集中纱布识别的灵敏度和精确率分别为60.712%(989/1 629)和54.944%(989/1 800)。手术视频实时运行时帧率≥15 fps。神经网络模型对总体测试集中纱布识别的漏报率和误报率分别为21.529%(932/4 329)和30.189%(1 469/4 866)。漏报主要原因为图像模糊、纱布暴露面积过小及纱布浸血严重,误报主要原因为结缔组织、体液反光导致误识别。
    结论 基于深度学习的纱布识别技术在腹腔镜胰腺手术中可行,可协助医务人员识别纱布。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To investigate the application value of machine learning algorithms for gauze detection in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery.
    Methods The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The 80 intact laparoscopic pancreatic surgery videos from Peking Union Medical College Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences with timing of July 2017 to July 2020 were collected. The training set was used to train the neural network, and the test set was used to test the ability of neural network for gauze detection under different difficulties. Under the supervision of two superior doctors, videos that containing gauze were selected and classified according to recognition difficulty into three difficulty level including easy, normal and hard difficulty, and further divided based on random number method into training set with 61 videos and test set with 19 videos in a ratio of 3:1 roughly. The minimum enclosing rectangle of the gauze were marked frame by frame. All images were input to the neural network model for training after normalization and preprocessing. For every image, the output of neural network is the predicted minimum enclosing rectangle of gauze. The intersection over union >0.5 was identified as positive result. Observation indicators: (1) video annotation and classification; (2) test outcomes of neural network for test set.Count data were represented as absolute numbers or percentages.
    Results (1) Video annotation and classification: a total of 26 893 frames of images form 80 videos were annotated, with 61 videos including 22 564 frames of images as the training set and 19 videos including 4 329 frames of images as the test set. Of the training set, 19 videos including 5 791 frames of images were classifed as easy difficulty, 38 videos including 15 771 frames of images were classifed as normal difficulty, 4 videos including 1 002 frames of images were classifed as hard difficulty, respectively. Of the test set, 4 videos including 1 684 frames of images were classifed as easy difficulty, 6 videos including 1 016 frames of images were classifed as normal difficulty, 9 videos including 1 629 frames of images were classifed as hard difficulty, respectively. (2) Test outcomes of neural network for test set: the overall sensitivity and accuracy of gauze detection by neural network in the test set were 78.471%(3 397/4 329) and 69.811%(3 397/4 866), respectively. The sensitivity and accuracy of gauze detection by neural network were 94.478%(1 591/1 684) and 83.168%(1 591/1 913) in easy difficulty test set. The sensitivity and accuracy of gauze detection by neural network were 80.413%(817/1 016) and 70.859%(817/1 153) in normal difficulty test set, 60.712%(989/1 629) and 54.944%(989/1 800)in hard difficulty test set. The frame rate reached more than or equally to 15 fps. The overall false negative rate and false positive rate of gauze detection by neural network in the test set were 21.529%(932/4 329) and 30.189%(1 469/4 866), respectively. The false negative was mainly due to the existence of blurred images, too small gauze exposure or blood immersion of gauze. The false positive was caused by the reflection of connective tissue or body fluids.
    Conclusion The machine learning algorithms for gauze detection in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is feasible, which could help medical staff identify gauze.

     

/

返回文章
返回