Wen Shi1,2, Guohui Yan3, Yamin Li2,4, Haotian Li1, Tintin Liu1, Yi Zhang1, Yu Zou3, and Dan Wu1
1Key Laboratory for Biomedical Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Biomedical Engineering & Instrument Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 2Key Laboratory of Biomedical Information Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Life Science and Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China, 3Department of Radiology, Women's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 4School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
Synopsis
Accurate estimation of the brain
age is important for the evaluation of brain development, especially in the
fetal stage when little diagnostic tools are available. This study designed
attention-based deep ensembles to estimate brain age in the normal developing
fetus, based on axial T2-weighted in-utero MRI images from routine clinical
scans. Mean absolute error of 0.803 week was achieved, and the attention maps
highlighted the regions of interest associated with the estimation.
Predictive uncertainty was simultaneously quantified, and together with the
proposed prediction confidence, we were able to detect several types of
anomalies, including small head circumference, malformations, and ventriculomegaly.
Introduction
MRI-based brain age estimation
provides important markers in studies of brain development or aging1-3.
However, the estimation of the fetal brain was not full-investigated despite its
significance, partially due to the difficulty in utero MRI acquisition and the
lack of large datasets4. In this study, we propose a learning-based
technique for brain age prediction using routine clinical 2D multislice fetal
brain MRI scans. Simultaneously, the predictive uncertainty can be quantified
from the network to assess the morphologic abnormality in fetal brains. We trained an attention-based
deep residual network and tested its performance in brain age estimation of the
normal developing fetus, as well as its efficacy in detecting different types
of fetal anomalies.Methods
Data
acquisition: T2-weighted in-utero MRI scans of 665 healthy (GA: 22-39 weeks)
and 50 abnormal (GA: 22-39 weeks) fetuses were retrospectively collected from
the local hospital with IRB approval. The images were acquired on a 1.5 Tesla
scanner (GE Signa HDxt) using a single-shot fast spin echo sequence with the
following parameters: TE/TR=130/2400ms, FOV=360$$$\times$$$360mm, in-plane resolution=0.7mm, 9-20 slices with slice
thickness of 3.0-4.5mm, axial orientation. The abnormal fetuses were divided
into four groups, namely the large and small head circumference (HC), ventriculomegaly
and malformation.
Preprocessing: fetal brain was
extracted using a U-Net based segmentation5, and then automatically
cropped. The middle slice was designated as the slice with the largest brain
area. Each slice was resized into 192×192 by padding zero in the surrounding
regions and was then realigned and normalized. Altogether, seven slices (three
slices inferior and superior to the middle slice) were taken into account.
Network details: Different training strategies were
evaluated. Three types of input schemes, including the single-slice (middle
slice), 2D multi-slice, and 3D volume, were compared. The attention mechanism
was then added to the optimal scheme to enhance prediction6,7. The network was constructed by
three different attention modules, each of which contained a truck branch and a
mask branch (Figure 1). The first two mask branches
adopted the bottom-up and top-down structure, integrating multi-scale
information using shortcuts8. The third module adopted features from
higher layers to acquire the attention maps with better semantic abstraction9.
Moreover, the uncertainty was modeled by assuming the data $$$\mathcal{D}\text{= }\!\!\{\!\!\text{
}\mathbf{x}\text{ }\!\!\}\!\!\text{ }_{n=1}^{N}$$$ follows a heteroscedastic Gaussian
distribution $$$\mathcal{N}(y;\mu
(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{w}),{{\sigma }^{2}}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{w}))$$$, where x, $$$y$$$, w denotes the MR images, gestational age and model weights,
respectively. The model was trained by minimizing negative log-likelihood $$$\mathcal{L}(\mathsf{\mathcal{D}})$$$, and the predictive uncertainty $$$\delta (\mathbf{x})$$$ and predicted brain age $$$\mu (\mathbf{x})$$$ were therefore computed via network ensembles10,11. $$\mathcal{L}(\mathsf{\mathcal{D}})=\sum\limits_{i}{\frac{{{({{y}_{i}}-\mu
({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},\mathbf{w}))}^{2}}}{2{{\sigma
}^{2}}({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},\mathbf{w})}}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i}{\log
}{{\sigma }^{2}}({{\mathbf{x}}_{i}},\mathbf{w}) $$ Then, a robustly estimated confidence $$$c$$$ of predicted brain age is proposed.$$c(\mathbf{x},y)=\mathcal{N}(y;\hat{\mu
}(\mathbf{x}),\hat{\delta }(y))$$ GA-corrected absolute age
difference (AAD), predictive uncertainty and confidence of brain age were used
to differentiate different types of abnormal fetuses from the normal ones.Results
The network trained in single-slice
strategy achieved better performance than multi-slice schemes, and the mean absolute error (MAE) for
deep ensembles on the middle slice was 0.803 week and the corresponding R2 was 0.926 for the attention-driven deep ensembles (Figure 2). The predictive
uncertainty showed a strong positive linear correlation over gestational age
(Figure 3A), while the confidence of fetal brain age showed a moderate negative
dependence (Figure 3B). As the uncertainty plotted on top of the normal curves, it
was observed that the abnormal data had higher predictive uncertainty and lower
confidence of brain age than those of healthy fetuses (gray shades).
Figure 4A demonstrated that the
brain ages of the abnormal fetus were beyond the normal range
according to the AAD, except the fetuses with large HC, and the
predictive uncertainty significantly increased in the fetus with malformations.
Moreover, the predicted brain ages of abnormal fetus were significantly less
convinced than the healthy groups. The classification results revealed the
confidence of brain age had good capability in detecting different types of
anomalies while AAD showed the best performance in detecting the fetuses with
small HC over the other markers (Figure 4B). Additionally, attention activation maps and
Grad class activation maps in the first module and saliency maps of inputs were
obtained to visualize the regions associated with fetal age prediction (Figure 5). The margins between gray matters and cerebrospinal fluid were
highlighted indicating these regions were critical during fetal brain
development.Discussion and Conclusion
In this study, we developed an attention-based
residual network based on model ensembles with uncertainty to estimate the
brain age of fetus, using axial MR scans only. It achieved an accurate
prediction, and the uncertainty was simultaneously quantified for anomaly
detection. The predictive uncertainty was less sensitive to the size of the fetal
brain, but it has a good sensitivity to malformations. Additionally, the
confidence of brain age was proposed by combining the predicted age error and
predictive uncertainty, which showed a promising capability in detecting several
types of fetal anomalies. Future work will be focused on adding prior
information into the network training for better prediction and detection and employing
patch-based fetal brain age estimation. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the
Natural Science Foundation of China (61801424, 81971606, and 91859201) and the
Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China
(2018YFE0114600).References
1. Kaufmann T, van der Meer D,
Doan N T et al. Common brain disorders are associated with heritable patterns
of apparent aging of the brain. Nature neuroscience. 2019; 22(10):1617-1623.
2. Cole J H, Franke K. Predicting
age using neuroimaging: innovative brain ageing biomarkers. Trends in
neurosciences. 2017; 40(12):681-690.
3. Franke K, et al. Brain
maturation: predicting individual BrainAGE in children and adolescents using
structural MRI. Neuroimage 2012; 63(3): 1305-1312.
4. Studholme
C. Mapping fetal brain development in utero using magnetic resonance imaging:
the Big Bang of brain mapping. Annual review of biomedical engineering, 2011;13:345-368.
5. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, and
Brox T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation.
International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted
intervention, 2015; 234-241.
6. Vaswani, A, et al. Attention
is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2017; 5998-6008
7. Hu J, Shen L. and Sun G.,
2018. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on
computer vision and pattern recognition. 2018; 7132-7141.
8. Wang F, Jiang M, Qian C, et
al. Residual attention network for image classification. Proceedings of the
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2017; 3156-3164.
9. Zhang
J, Xie Y, Xia Y, et al. Attention residual learning for skin lesion
classification. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2019.
10. Lakshminarayanan B, Pritzel
A, Blundell C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep
ensembles. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2017; 6402-6413.
11. Beluch
W H, Genewein T, Nürnberger A and Köhler J M. The power of ensembles for active
learning in image classification. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2018; 9368-9377.