Cited by 136Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesMedical Image Segmentation Techniques

Using Deep Learning Algorithms to Grade Hydronephrosis Severity: Toward a Clinical Adjunct

Open access
Smail, Lauren C., Dhindsa, Kiret, Braga, Luis H., Becker, Suzanna, Sonnadara, Ranil R.·2020·Frontiers in Pediatrics

Abstract

Grading hydronephrosis severity relies on subjective interpretation of renal ultrasound images. Deep learning algorithms classify images into categories using data-driven methods, thus presenting a promising option for grading hydronephrosis. The current study explored the potential of convolutional neural networks (CNN), a type of deep learning algorithm, to grade hydronephrosis ultrasound images according to the 5-point Society for Fetal Urology (SFU) classification system, and discusses its potential applications in developing decision and teaching aids for clinical practice. We developed a five-layer CNN to grade 2420 sagittal hydronephrosis ultrasound images (191 SFU 0 [8%], 407 SFU I [17%], 666 SFU II [28%], 833 SFU III [34%], and 323 SFU IV [13%]), from 673 patients ranging from 0 to 116.29 months old (Mage=16.53, SD=17.80). Five-way (all grades) and two-way classification problems (i.e. II vs. III, and low [0-II] vs. high [III-IV]) were explored. The CNN classified 94% (95% CI, 93%-95%) of the images correctly or within one grade of the provided label in the five-way classification problem. 51% of these images (95% CI, 49%-53%) were correctly predicted, with an average weighted F1 score of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.47-0.51). The CNN achieved an average accuracy of 78% (95% CI, 75%-82%) with an average weighted F1 of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82) when classifying low vs. high grades, and an average accuracy of 71% (95% CI, 68%-74%) with an average weighted F1 score of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.75) when discriminating between grades II vs. III. Our model performs well above chance level, and classifies almost all images either correctly or within one grade of the provided label. We have demonstrated the applicability of a CNN approach to hydronephrosis ultrasound image classification, and further investigation into a deep learning-based clinical adjunct for hydronephrosis is warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fped.2020.00001

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Two studies focused on amniotic fluid, with one evaluating automatic measurement of amniotic fluid index and the other assessing segmentation of amniotic fluid and fetal tissue.

    “Two studies focused on amniotic fluid with one evaluating automatic measurement of amniotic fluid index 120 and the other assessing segmentation of amniotic fluid and fetal tissue.121”

    From Artificial intelligence in obstetric ultrasound: A scoping review. (2023) · cites this paper as [120]

    Citation 121 is attached to the claim about segmenting amniotic fluid and fetal tissue. The Materials and Methods (Study Population and Exclusion Criteria; page unavailable) instead describes renal ultrasound images graded for hydronephrosis severity, while the Discussion (Limitations and Future Work; page unavailable) proposes kidney segmentation for future study. The paper does not assess segmentation of amniotic fluid or fetal tissue. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 136

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [1]Lorenzo AJ Rickard M Braga LH Guo Y Oliveria JP. Predictive analytics and modeling employing machine learning technology: the next step in data sharing, analysis and individualized counseling explored with a large, prospective prenatal hydronephrosis database. Urology. (2018) 123: 204– 9. 10.1016/j.urology.2018.05.041 29964127 · DOI
  2. [2]Cerrolaza JJ Peters CA Martin AD Myers E Safdar N Linguraru MG. Quantitative ultrasound for measuring obstructive severity in children with hydronephrosis. J Urol. (2016) 195: 1093– 9. 10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.173 26551298 · DOI
  3. [3]Krizhevsky A Sutskever I Hinton GE ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Pereira F Burges CJC Bottou L Weinberger KQ editors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25. Lake Tahoe, NV: Curran Associates Inc (2012). p. 1097– 105.
  4. [4]Le Cun Y Bottou L Bengio Y Haffner P Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc IEEE. (1998) 86: 2278– 324. 10.1109/5.726791 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]Woodward M Frank D. Postnatal management of antenatal hydronephrosis. BJU Int. (2002) 89: 149– 56. 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.woodward.2578.x 11849184 · DOI
  6. [6]Montini G Tullus K Hewitt I. Febrile urinary tract infections in children. N Engl J Med. (2011) 365: 239– 50. 10.1056/NEJMra1007755 21774712 · DOI
  7. [7]Yang Y Hou Y Niu ZB Wang CL. Long-term follow-up and management of prenatally detected, isolated hydronephrosis. J Pediatr Surg. (2010) 45: 1701– 6. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.03.030 20713223 · DOI
  8. [8]Braga LH McGrath M Farrokhyar F Jegatheeswaran K Lorenzo AJ. Associations of initial society for fetal urology grades and urinary tract dilatation risk groups with clinical outcomes in patients with isolated prenatal hydronephrosis. J Urol. (2017) 197: 831– 7. 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.099 27590478 · DOI
  9. [9]González R Schimke CM. The prenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis, when and why to operate? Arch Esp Urol. (1998) 51: 575– 9. 9773587
  10. [10]Hanna MK. Antenatal hydronephrosis and ureteropelvic junction obstruction: the case for early intervention. Urology. (2000) 55: 612– 5. 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00460-X 10792063 · DOI
  11. [11]Nguyen HT Benson CB Bromley B Campbell JB Chow J Coleman B. Multidisciplinary consensus on the classification of prenatal and postnatal urinary tract dilation (UTD classification system). J Pediatr Urol. (2014) 10: 982– 98. 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.10.002 25435247 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [12]Rickard M Easterbrook B Kim S Farrokhyar F Stein N Arora S. Six of one, half a dozen of the other: a measure of multidisciplinary inter/intra-rater reliability of the society for fetal urology and urinary tract dilation grading systems for hydronephrosis. J Pediatr Urol. (2017) 13: 80.e1– 5. 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.09.005 27916387 · DOI
  13. [13]Keays MA Guerra LA Mihill J Raju G Al-Asheeri N Geier P. Reliability assessment of society for fetal urology ultrasound grading system for hydronephrosis. J Urol. (2008) 180: 1680– 3. 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.107 18708207 · DOI
  14. [14]Dhindsa K Smail LC McGrath M Braga LH Becker S Sonnadara RR Grading prenatal hydronephrosis from ultrasound imaging using deep convolutional neural networks. In: 15th Conference on Computer and Robot Vision. Toronto, ON: IEEExplore (2018). p. 80– 7. Available online at: https://bibbase.org/network/publication/dhindsa-smail-mcgrath-braga-bec ker-sonnadara-gradingprenatalhydronephrosisfromultrasoundimagingusing deepconvolutionalneuralnetworks-2018 (accessed July 12, 2018).
  15. [15]Nguyen HT Herndon CDA Cooper C Gatti J Kirsch A Kokorowski P. The society for fetal urology consensus statement on the evaluation and management of antenatal hydronephrosis. J Pediatr Urol. (2010) 6: 212– 31. 10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.02.205 20399145 · DOI
  16. [16]Nieminen A Heinonen P Neuvo Y. A new class of detail-preserving filters for image processing. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. (1987) 9: 74– 90. 10.1109/TPAMI.1987.4767873 21869378 · DOI
  17. [17]Simard PY Steinkraus D Platt JC Best practices in convolutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis. In: Seventh International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, 2003 (Edinburgh) (2003). p. 958– 62. 10.1109/ICDAR.2003.1227801 · DOI
  18. [18]Le Cun Y Bengio Y Hinton G Deep learning. Nature. (2015) 521: 436– 44. 10.1038/nature14539 26017442 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [20]Abadi M Agarwal A Barham P Brevdo E Chen Z Citro C TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems (2016). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04467 (accessed March 14, 2019). · arXiv
  20. [21]Bach S Binder A Montavon G Klauschen F Müller KR Samek W. On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10: e0130140. 10.1371/journal.pone.0130140 26161953 PMC4498753 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [22]Ancona M Ceolini E Öztireli C Gross M Towards Better Understanding of Gradient-Based Attribution Methods for Deep Neural Networks (2017). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06104 (accessed September 20, 2018). · arXiv
  22. [23]Yin S Peng Q Li H Zhang Z You X Liu H. Multi-instance deep learning with graph convolutional neural networks for diagnosis of kidney diseases using ultrasound imaging. In: Greenspan H Tanno R Erdt M Arbel T Baumgartner C Dalca A editors. Uncertainty for Safe Utilization of Machine Learning in Medical Imaging and Clinical Image-Based Procedures. Cham: Springer International Publishing (2019). p. 146– 54. PMC6938161 31893285
  23. [24]Zheng Q Furth SL Tasian GE Fan Y. Computer-aided diagnosis of congenital abnormalities of the kidney and urinary tract in children based on ultrasound imaging data by integrating texture image features and deep transfer learning image features. J Pediatr Urol. (2019) 15: 75.e1– 7. 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.10.020 30473474 PMC6410741 · DOI
  24. [25]Sivanesan U Braga LH Sonnadara RR Dhindsa K Unsupervised Medical Image Segmentation with Adversarial Networks: From Edge Diagrams to Segmentation Maps (2019). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.05140 (accessed December 03, 2019). · arXiv
  25. [26]Dhindsa K Bhandari M Sonnadara RR. What's holding up the big data revolution in healthcare? BMJ. (2018) 363: k5357. 10.1136/bmj.k5357 30593447 · DOI

Authors
Smail, L. C., Dhindsa, K., Braga, L. H., Becker, S., & Sonnadara, R. R.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Vector Institute (CA)
  • McMaster Children's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Braga, Luis H.
Venue
Frontiers in Pediatrics
Published
2020-01-29
Volume
8
Pages
1-1
ISSN
2296-2360 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2999205267
Cited by
136
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 18
FWCI
8.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Pediatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
McMaster University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
Keywords
renal ultrasound, convolutional neural networks, pediatric urology, clinical decision support, image classification, fetal hydronephrosis, computer-aided diagnosis, teaching aids, model interpretability, false-negative results, model generalization

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