Deep learning (DL) models have provided the state-of-the-art performance in a wide variety of medical imaging benchmarking challenges, including the Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenges. However, the task of focal pathology multi-compartment segmentation (e.g., tumor and lesion sub-regions) is particularly challenging, and potential errors hinder the translation of DL models into clinical workflows. Quantifying the reliability of DL model predictions in the form of uncertainties, could enable clinical review of the most uncertain regions, thereby building trust and paving the way towards clinical translation. Recently, a number of uncertainty estimation methods have been introduced for DL medical image segmentation tasks. Developing metrics to evaluate and compare the performance of uncertainty measures will assist the end-user in making more informed decisions. In this study, we explore and evaluate a metric developed during the BraTS 2019-2020 task on uncertainty quantification (QU-BraTS), and designed to assess and rank uncertainty estimates for brain tumor multi-compartment segmentation. This metric (1) rewards uncertainty estimates that produce high confidence in correct assertions, and those that assign low confidence levels at incorrect assertions, and (2) penalizes uncertainty measures that lead to a higher percentages of under-confident correct assertions. We further benchmark the segmentation uncertainties generated by 14 independent participating teams of QU-BraTS 2020, all of which also participated in the main BraTS segmentation task. Overall, our findings confirm the importance and complementary value that uncertainty estimates provide to segmentation algorithms, and hence highlight the need for uncertainty quantification in medical image analyses. Our evaluation code is made publicly available at https://github.com/RagMeh11/QU-BraTS.
Model brittleness is a key concern when deploying deep learning models in real-world medical settings. A model that has high performance at one institution may suffer a significant decline in performance when tested at other institutions. While pooling datasets from multiple institutions and retraining may provide a straightforward solution, it is often infeasible and may compromise patient privacy. An alternative approach is to fine-tune the model on subsequent institutions after training on the original institution. Notably, this approach degrades model performance at the original institution, a phenomenon known as catastrophic forgetting. In this paper, we develop an approach to address catastrophic forget-ting based on elastic weight consolidation combined with modulation of batch normalization statistics under two scenarios: first, for expanding the domain from one imaging system's data to another imaging system's, and second, for expanding the domain from a large multi-institutional dataset to another single institution dataset. We show that our approach outperforms several other state-of-the-art approaches and provide theoretical justification for the efficacy of batch normalization modulation. The results of this study are generally applicable to the deployment of any clinical deep learning model which requires domain expansion.
Model brittleness is a primary concern when deploying deep learning models in medical settings owing to inter-institution variations, like patient demographics and intra-institution variation, such as multiple scanner types. While simply training on the combined datasets is fraught with data privacy limitations, fine-tuning the model on subsequent institutions after training it on the original institution results in a decrease in performance on the original dataset, a phenomenon called catastrophic forgetting. In this paper, we investigate trade-off between model refinement and retention of previously learned knowledge and subsequently address catastrophic forgetting for the assessment of mammographic breast density. More specifically, we propose a simple yet effective approach, adapting Elastic weight consolidation (EWC) using the global batch normalization (BN) statistics of the original dataset. The results of this study provide guidance for the deployment of clinical deep learning models where continuous learning is needed for domain expansion.
* Accepted as oral presentation in Machine Learning for Health (ML4H)
at NeurIPS 2020 - Extended Abstract ; 6 pages and 4 figures
While success of Deep Learning (DL) in automated diagnosis can be transformative to the medicinal practice especially for people with little or no access to doctors, its widespread acceptability is severely limited by inherent black-box decision making and unsafe failure modes. While saliency methods attempt to tackle this problem in non-medical contexts, their apriori explanations do not transfer well to medical usecases. With this study we validate a model design element agnostic to both architecture complexity and model task, and show how introducing this element gives an inherently self-explanatory model. We compare our results with state of the art non-trainable saliency maps on RSNA Pneumonia Dataset and demonstrate a much higher localization efficacy using our adopted technique. We also compare, with a fully supervised baseline and provide a reasonable alternative to it's high data labelling overhead. We further investigate the validity of our claims through qualitative evaluation from an expert reader.
* Machine Learning for Health (ML4H) at NeurIPS 2020 - Extended
Saliency maps have become a widely used method to make deep learning models more interpretable by providing post-hoc explanations of classifiers through identification of the most pertinent areas of the input medical image. They are increasingly being used in medical imaging to provide clinically plausible explanations for the decisions the neural network makes. However, the utility and robustness of these visualization maps has not yet been rigorously examined in the context of medical imaging. We posit that trustworthiness in this context requires 1) localization utility, 2) sensitivity to model weight randomization, 3) repeatability, and 4) reproducibility. Using the localization information available in two large public radiology datasets, we quantify the performance of eight commonly used saliency map approaches for the above criteria using area under the precision-recall curves (AUPRC) and structural similarity index (SSIM), comparing their performance to various baseline measures. Using our framework to quantify the trustworthiness of saliency maps, we show that all eight saliency map techniques fail at least one of the criteria and are, in most cases, less trustworthy when compared to the baselines. We suggest that their usage in the high-risk domain of medical imaging warrants additional scrutiny and recommend that detection or segmentation models be used if localization is the desired output of the network. Additionally, to promote reproducibility of our findings, we provide the code we used for all tests performed in this work at this link: https://github.com/QTIM-Lab/Assessing-Saliency-Maps.
* Submitted to Nature Machine Intelligence. First four authors
contributed equally to this work
Saliency maps have become a widely used method to assess which areas of the input image are most pertinent to the prediction of a trained neural network. However, in the context of medical imaging, there is no study to our knowledge that has examined the efficacy of these techniques and quantified them using overlap with ground truth bounding boxes. In this work, we explored the credibility of the various existing saliency map methods on the RSNA Pneumonia dataset. We found that GradCAM was the most sensitive to model parameter and label randomization, and was highly agnostic to model architecture.