arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2411.10345cs.CVcs.LG

骨龄评估的机器学习方法比较分析:三种不同模型的综合研究

Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Approaches for Bone Age Assessment: A Comprehensive Study on Three Distinct Models

SRM Institute of Science & Technology(SRM科学技术学院)

Nandavardhan R., Somanathan R., Vikram Suresh, Savaridassan P

AI总结:

本研究比较分析了Xception、VGG和CNN三种机器学习模型在自动化骨龄预测中的表现,通过在预处理数据集上训练并使用MAE评估准确性与相关因素,为根据需求和资源选择合适模型提供了参考。

摘要:

放射科医生和医生利用儿童和婴儿非优势手的X光图像来评估遗传疾病和生长异常的可能性。这是通过评估X光片显示的实际生长程度与受试者实际年龄之间的差异来完成的。传统上,该评估使用The Greulich Pyle (GP)或Tanner Whitehouse (TW)方法进行。这些方法需要高度的专业知识,并且通常可能导致观察者偏差。因此,为了自动化X光评估过程并提高其准确性和效率,已经开发了多种机器学习模型。这些机器学习模型在准确性和效率方面存在若干差异,导致根据需求和可用资源难以选择合适的模型。方法:在本研究中,我们分析了3种最广泛使用的骨龄预测自动化模型,即Xception模型、VGG模型和CNN模型。这些模型在预处理数据集上进行了训练,并使用MAE(以月为单位)测量了每个模型的准确性。借此,我们对这些模型进行了比较。结果:对Xception、VGG和CNN这3种模型的准确性及其他相关因素进行了测试。

英文摘要:

Radiologists and doctors make use of X-ray images of the non-dominant hands of children and infants to assess the possibility of genetic conditions and growth abnormalities. This is done by assessing the difference between the actual extent of growth found using the X-rays and the chronological age of the subject. The assessment was done conventionally using The Greulich Pyle (GP) or Tanner Whitehouse (TW) approach. These approaches require a high level of expertise and may often lead to observer bias. Hence, to automate the process of assessing the X-rays, and to increase its accuracy and efficiency, several machine learning models have been developed. These machine-learning models have several differences in their accuracy and efficiencies, leading to an unclear choice for the suitable model depending on their needs and available resources. Methods: In this study, we have analyzed the 3 most widely used models for the automation of bone age prediction, which are the Xception model, VGG model and CNN model. These models were trained on the preprocessed dataset and the accuracy was measured using the MAE in terms of months for each model. Using this, the comparison between the models was done. Results: The 3 models, Xception, VGG, and CNN models have been tested for accuracy and other relevant factors.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑