Natural vs balanced distribution in deep learning on whole slide images for cancer detection

The class distribution of data is one of the factors that regulates the performance of machine learning models. However, investigations on the impact of different distributions available in the literature are very few, sometimes absent for domain-specific tasks. In this paper, we analyze the impact of natural and balanced distributions of the training set in deep learning (DL) models applied on histological images, also known as whole slide images (WSIs). WSIs are considered as the gold standard for cancer diagnosis. In recent years, researchers have turned their attention to DL models to automate and accelerate the diagnosis process. In the training of such DL models, filtering out the non-regions-of-interest from the WSIs and adopting an artificial distribution—usually a balanced distribution—is a common trend. In our analysis, we show that keeping the WSIs data in their usual distribution—which we call natural distribution—for DL training produces fewer false positives (FPs) with comparable false negatives (FNs) than the artificially-obtained balanced distribution. We conduct an empirical comparative study with 10 random folds for each distribution, comparing the resulting average performance levels in terms of five different evaluation metrics. Experimental results show the effectiveness of the natural distribution over the balanced one across all the evaluation metrics.

[1]  Gustavo E. A. P. A. Batista,et al.  Class imbalance revisited: a new experimental setup to assess the performance of treatment methods , 2014, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[2]  Lijun Xie,et al.  A regularized ensemble framework of deep learning for cancer detection from multi-class, imbalanced training data , 2018, Pattern Recognit..

[3]  Hermann Ney,et al.  Deep Learning of Mouth Shapes for Sign Language , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW).

[4]  Atsuto Maki,et al.  A systematic study of the class imbalance problem in convolutional neural networks , 2017, Neural Networks.

[5]  Hao Chen,et al.  ScanNet: A Fast and Dense Scanning Framework for Metastastic Breast Cancer Detection from Whole-Slide Image , 2017, 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV).

[6]  Navid Farahani,et al.  whole slide imaging in pathology: advantages, limitations, and emerging perspectives , 2015 .

[7]  Andrew H. Beck,et al.  Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer , 2017, JAMA.

[8]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[9]  Mohammed Bennamoun,et al.  Cost-Sensitive Learning of Deep Feature Representations From Imbalanced Data , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.

[10]  Tal Hassner,et al.  Age and gender classification using convolutional neural networks , 2015, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW).

[11]  Takaya Saito,et al.  The Precision-Recall Plot Is More Informative than the ROC Plot When Evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Datasets , 2015, PloS one.

[12]  Dayong Wang,et al.  Deep Learning for Identifying Metastatic Breast Cancer , 2016, ArXiv.

[13]  Max Welling,et al.  Rotation Equivariant CNNs for Digital Pathology , 2018, MICCAI.

[14]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTEBoost: Improving Prediction of the Minority Class in Boosting , 2003, PKDD.

[15]  Ruchika Gupta,et al.  Whole Slide Imaging (WSI) in Pathology: Current Perspectives and Future Directions , 2020, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[16]  Thomas Brox,et al.  U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation , 2015, MICCAI.

[17]  Yirui Wu,et al.  SMOTE-Boost-based sparse Bayesian model for flood prediction , 2020, EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking.

[18]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[19]  George E. Dahl,et al.  Artificial Intelligence-Based Breast Cancer Nodal Metastasis Detection: Insights Into the Black Box for Pathologists. , 2018, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[20]  Zenghui Wang,et al.  Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classification: A Comprehensive Review , 2017, Neural Computation.

[21]  Guigang Zhang,et al.  Deep Learning , 2016, Int. J. Semantic Comput..

[22]  H. Wang,et al.  Segmenting subcellular structures in histology tissue images , 2015, 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI).

[23]  Foster J. Provost,et al.  Learning When Training Data are Costly: The Effect of Class Distribution on Tree Induction , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[24]  Baowei Fei,et al.  Head and Neck Cancer Detection in Digitized Whole-Slide Histology Using Convolutional Neural Networks , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[25]  George D. C. Cavalcanti,et al.  A study on combining dynamic selection and data preprocessing for imbalance learning , 2018, Neurocomputing.

[26]  Lewis D. Griffin,et al.  Detection of concealed cars in complex cargo X-ray imagery using deep learning , 2016, Journal of X-ray science and technology.

[27]  Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar,et al.  Survey on deep learning with class imbalance , 2019, J. Big Data.

[28]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[29]  Aleksey Boyko,et al.  Detecting Cancer Metastases on Gigapixel Pathology Images , 2017, ArXiv.

[30]  Stan Matwin,et al.  Addressing the Curse of Imbalanced Training Sets: One-Sided Selection , 1997, ICML.

[31]  D. Klarkowski,et al.  False Positive HIV Diagnoses in Resource Limited Settings: Operational Lessons Learned for HIV Programmes , 2013, PloS one.

[32]  Yang Wang,et al.  Cost-sensitive boosting for classification of imbalanced data , 2007, Pattern Recognit..