↓ Skip to main content

Generation of synthetic ground glass nodules using generative adversarial networks (GANs)

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology Experimental, November 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Generation of synthetic ground glass nodules using generative adversarial networks (GANs)
Published in
European Radiology Experimental, November 2022
DOI 10.1186/s41747-022-00311-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhixiang Wang, Zhen Zhang, Ying Feng, Lizza E. L. Hendriks, Razvan L. Miclea, Hester Gietema, Janna Schoenmaekers, Andre Dekker, Leonard Wee, Alberto Traverso

Abstract

Data shortage is a common challenge in developing computer-aided diagnosis systems. We developed a generative adversarial network (GAN) model to generate synthetic lung lesions mimicking ground glass nodules (GGNs). We used 216 computed tomography images with 340 GGNs from the Lung Image Database Consortium and Image Database Resource Initiative database. A GAN model retrieving information from the whole image and the GGN region was built. The generated samples were evaluated with visual Turing test performed by four experienced radiologists or pulmonologists. Radiomic features were compared between real and synthetic nodules. Performances were evaluated by area under the curve (AUC) at receiver operating characteristic analysis. In addition, we trained a classification model (ResNet) to investigate whether the synthetic GGNs can improve the performances algorithm and how performances changed as a function of labelled data used in training. Of 51 synthetic GGNs, 19 (37%) were classified as real by clinicians. Of 93 radiomic features, 58 (62.4%) showed no significant difference between synthetic and real GGNs (p ≥ 0.052). The discrimination performances of physicians (AUC 0.68) and radiomics (AUC 0.66) were similar, with no-significantly different (p = 0.23), but clinicians achieved a better accuracy (AUC 0.74) than radiomics (AUC 0.62) (p < 0.001). The classification model trained on datasets with synthetic data performed better than models without the addition of synthetic data. GAN has promising potential for generating GGNs. Through similar AUC, clinicians achieved better ability to diagnose whether the data is synthetic than radiomics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2023.
All research outputs
#14,887,416
of 24,417,324 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology Experimental
#100
of 248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,774
of 465,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology Experimental
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 465,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.