Web Based AI
Solution For
Breast Ultrasound
Team
Members
Supervisors
Ahmed Mostafa
Saied Salem
Omar Mansour
Yasien Essam
Dr. Ahmed Ehab
Dr. Tamer Basha
Sponsored By
Motivation
Number of new occurrences internationally
2020
Number of new occurrences
In Egypt
2020
Statistics
BI-RADS
BI-RAD 5
BI-RAD 2
BI-RAD 3
BI-RAD 4
Solutions
Market �Research
02
Stakeholder Meeting
Global Competitors
Local Competitors
Why Ultrasound?
No Ionizing Radiation
Portable, Mobile & Widely Used
Cost-Effective
Flexibility
Why Web-Based?
01
General Access To Medical Images
Security
Compatibility
Flexibility
02
03
04
Business Model
03
Partners
Medical Equipment Providers
Research Institutions
Customers
Healthcare Providers
Imaging Centers
Values
Improved diagnostic accuracy
Enhanced workflow efficiency
Optimized resource allocation
Cloud Infrastructure Costs
Powerful GPUs for Development
Costs
Resources
Revenue
Subscription model
Per-use pricing
Licensing
Business Model
System Specs
04
Scenario
Take Acquisition
PACS SYSTEM
App
Viewer
Log In
Operation
Specs
System Walkthrough
System Main Features
Sign Up
Account Verification
Login Page
Reset Password
ExamList
Content:
Features:
Add Examination Feature
Upload PNG Locally
Browse from local directory to upload PNG. Application then convert it to DICOM
Upload DICOM Locally
Browse from local directory to upload DICOM Files
Saturn is the ringed planet. It’s composed mostly of hydrogen and helium
PACS Connection
Using Orthanc to simulate uploading from modality via PACS
Upload Multiple Files
User can upload multiple DICOM & PNG at the same time.
SECURITY FEATURES
Thumbnails displaying DICOM instants within the study
Annotations & Measurements Tools: Panning/Zooming/ROI (Ellipse-Rectangle-Free Hand-Line Angle)/Contrast/MultiFrame Support
AI Segmentation Contour
Doctor Measurements
Report Generation
Multi Frame Support
Technical
Specs
System Architecture
Cloud Performance
Cloud Processing Time
VM Specs:
No of Frames | Load Time | Image Processing | Classification | Segmentation | Total Time |
1 Frame | 0.07s | 0.1s | 0.07s | 0.09s | 0.27s |
120 Frames | 6.26s | 7.95s | 9.45s | 7.90s | 31.32s |
130 Frames | 6.97s | 8.45s | 10.04s | 8.41s | 33.31s |
367 Frames | 25.92 | 26.40s | 29.43s | 26.40s | 118.02s |
Client Sequence Diagram
Server-Side Operations
Database Management
Authentication & Authorization
APIs
PACs Integration
Server-Side Roles (Database)
Tools
Client Side
Server Side
AI
PACS
Cloud
VM OS
Dockerization
Application Performance Testing
Stress Testing
Cloud Deployment
Methodology
05
Literature Review
Enhanced Small Tumor-Aware Network for Breast Ultrasound Image Segmentation : ESTAN Architecture
Attention-Enriched Deep Learning Model for Breast Tumor Segmentation
in Ultrasound Images
Hover-Trans (Classification SOTA)
Datasets
Data Information
Data | Acquisition Year | Patients | Transducers | Device | Samples |
2018 | 600 (25-75) | 1–5 MHz ML6-15-D Matrix linear probe | GE LOGIQ E9 | 780 | |
2012 | 163 | 8.5 MHz 17L5 HD linear array probe | Siemens ACUSON Sequoia C512 | 163 | |
2013-2015 | 78 | 5-14 MHz L14-5/38 linear array probe | Ultrasonix SonixTouch | 200 | |
2022 | 1202 | Multiple Linear Probes | Hitachi Ascendus Mindray DC-80 Toshiba Aplio 500 Supersonic Aixplorer | 2405 | |
- | 42 | - | - | 42 | |
Astute (Birads) | - | - | 3 - 12 MHz L3-12a Linear Array Probe | Samsung WS80A | 2771 |
Total Data Distribution
3483 Benign
2098 Malignant
133 Normal
Challenges
Breast Ultrasound Images are known for :
UI Removal Algorithm
AI Pipeline
AI Pipeline
Models
Classification Model
Classification Model
Model
Efficient-Net V2-B0
(270 Layers)
Original Data
1170 B-1531 M-103 N
4 Datasets
224x224x3 Shape
16 Batch Size
Learning Rate
Decaying Cyclic Learning Rate
Loss Function
Cross Entropy Or Focal Loss
Augmented Data
3399 Samples
Train-Val-Test
3399/551/586 Samples
Comparison Between Classifiers
Model | Accuracy | F1 Score | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
VGG16 | 76.7 | 0.76 | 75.8 | 77.8 | 76.8 |
MobileNet | 75.3 | 0.76 | 76.9 | 74.2 | 75.5 |
DenseNet121 | 73.3 | 0.72 | 70.9 | 75.9 | 73.4 |
EfficientNetB0 | 74.0 | 0.74 | 73.0 | 75.4 | 74.2 |
Hover-Trans | 84.0 | 0.80 | 78.0 | 85.4 | 86 |
EfficientNetV2-B0 | 89.0 | 0.87 | 89.0 | 92 | 96 |
Why Efficient-Net
Loss Functions
Cross-Entropy
Better With Balanced Dataset
Better With Imbalanced
Datasets
Focal Loss
Metrics On Test Data
179 Benign
392 Malignant
586 Samples
80%
Success Rate
89%
F1-Score & AUC
We achieved F1 Score of 0.89 and AUC of 0.97 on Test Data
Results
The classifier also reached an average specificity of 92 and test cross entropy of 0.269
Precision
0.89
Recall
0.89
15 Normal
Test Metrics
GradCams
Metrics On Astute Data
2370 Benign
401 Malignant
2771 Samples
80%
Success Rate
85%
F1-Score
We achieved F1 Score of 0.86 on Real Life Data
Results
The classifier can successfully generalize well
Precision
0.86
Recall
0.85
Astute Confusion Matrix
Segmentation Model
Segmentation Model
Model
Attention U-net
Input Data
5720 Samples
All Datasets
128x128x3 Shape
32 Batch Size
Learning Rate
Reduce On Plateau
Schedule
Loss Function
Log Cosh loss
Augmented Data
9148 Samples
Train-Val-Test
9148/573/573 Samples
Model Architecture
Segmentation Metrics
Intersection Over
Union
Dice Score
Loss Functions
Combo Loss
More flexible than dice and better highly imbalanced task
Overcome non convex nature of dice loss
Log Cosh Loss
Pytorch Data Engine
Initial Comparison Between U-Nets
Backbone | Pretrained | Loss Function | Validation Dice Score | Test Dice Score |
ResNet 34 | No | Combo Loss | 0.84 | 0.8338 |
SE-ResNet18 | No | Combo Loss | 0.82 | 0.83 |
DenseNet121 | No | Combo Loss | 0.82 | 0.83 |
InceptionV3 | Yes | Combo Loss | 0.8214 | 0.8276 |
ResNet 34 | No | Log Cosh Loss | 0.82 | 0.83 |
Final Comparison Between U-Nets
Model | Pretrained | Loss Function | Validation Dice Score | Test Dice Score |
Attention U-net | No | Log Cosh Loss | 0.86 | 0.85 |
ResNet 34 | No | Log Cosh Loss | 0.84 | 0.85 |
ResNet 50 | No | Combo loss | 0.84 | 0.83 |
Attention U-net | No | Combo loss | – | – |
Metrics On Test Data
573 Samples
80%
0.85
Dice Score
Results
Model also reached 0.15 dice loss on test data
Val Score
0.86
Test Score
0.85
Test Segmentation
Cloud Performance
Cloud Processing Time
VM Specs:
No of Frames | Load Time | Image Processing | Classification | Segmentation | Total Time |
1 Frame | 0.07s | 0.1s | 0.07s | 0.09s | 0.27s |
120 Frames | 6.26s | 7.95s | 9.45s | 7.90s | 31.32s |
130 Frames | 6.97s | 8.45s | 10.04s | 8.41s | 33.31s |
367 Frames | 25.92 | 26.40s | 29.43s | 26.40s | 118.02s |
Future Work
06
Future Work
Thank You