Cited by 31Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Comparative performance of 3D-DenseNet, 3D-ResNet, and 3D-VGG models in polyp detection for CT colonography

Uemura, Tomoki, Näppi, Janne J., Hironaka, Toru, Kim, Hyoungseop, Yoshida, Hiroyuki·2020·Medical Imaging 2020: Computer-Aided Diagnosis

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can process volumetric medical imaging data in their native volumetric input form. However, there is little information about the comparative performance of such models in medical imaging in general and in CT colonography (CTC) in particular. We compared the performance of a 3D densely connected CNN (3D-DenseNet) with those of the popular 3D residual CNN (3D-ResNet) and 3D Visual Geometry Group CNN (3D-VGG) in the reduction of false-positive detections (FPs) in computer-aided detection (CADe) of polyps in CTC. VGG is the earliest CNN design of these three models. ResNet has been used widely as a de-facto standard model for constructing deep CNNs for image classification in medical imaging. DenseNet is the most recent of these models and improves the flow of information and reduces the number of network parameters as compared to those of ResNet and VGG. For the evaluation, we used 403 CTC datasets from 203 patients. The classification performance of the CNNs was evaluated by use of 5-fold cross-validation, where the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used as the figure of merit. Each training fold was balanced by use of data augmentation of the samples of real polyps. Our preliminary results showed that the AUC value of the 3D-DenseNet (0.951) was statistically significantly higher than those of the reference models (P < 0.005), indicating that the 3D-DenseNet has the potential of substantially outperforming the other models in reducing FPs in CADe for CTC. This improvement was highest for the smallest polyps.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1117/12.2549103

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 3D ResNet50 architecture has proven effective in handling 3D medical imaging data.

    “we opted for its 3D counterpart, which has proven effective in handling 3D medical imaging data46.”

    From Foundation Model for Cancer Imaging Biomarkers (2024) · cites this paper as [46]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uemura, T., Näppi, J. J., Hironaka, T., Kim, H., & Yoshida, H.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Kyushu Institute of Technology (JP)
Venue
Medical Imaging 2020: Computer-Aided Diagnosis
Publisher
SPIE
Published
2020-03-16
Pages
110
OpenAlex
W3011008306
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
8.09
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
SPIE Medical Imaging: Computer-Aided Diagnosis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
CT colonography, polyp detection, computer-aided detection, 3D convolutional neural networks, 3D DenseNet, 3D ResNet, false positive reduction, volumetric medical imaging, data augmentation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review