Stephan Ursprung

2papers

2 Papers

IVNov 24, 2023Code
Automated Small Kidney Cancer Detection in Non-Contrast Computed Tomography

William McGough, Thomas Buddenkotte, Stephan Ursprung et al.

This study introduces an automated pipeline for renal cancer (RC) detection in non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT). In the development of our pipeline, we test three detections models: a shape model, a 2D-, and a 3D axial-sample model. Training (n=1348) and testing (n=64) data were gathered from open sources (KiTS23, Abdomen1k, CT-ORG) and Cambridge University Hospital (CUH). Results from cross-validation and testing revealed that the 2D axial sample model had the highest small ($\leq$40mm diameter) RC detection area under the curve (AUC) of 0.804. Our pipeline achieves 61.9\% sensitivity and 92.7\% specificity for small kidney cancers on unseen test data. Our results are much more accurate than previous attempts to automatically detect small renal cancers in NCCT, the most likely imaging modality for RC screening. This pipeline offers a promising advance that may enable screening for kidney cancers.

LGAug 14, 2020
Common pitfalls and recommendations for using machine learning to detect and prognosticate for COVID-19 using chest radiographs and CT scans

Michael Roberts, Derek Driggs, Matthew Thorpe et al.

Machine learning methods offer great promise for fast and accurate detection and prognostication of COVID-19 from standard-of-care chest radiographs (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) images. Many articles have been published in 2020 describing new machine learning-based models for both of these tasks, but it is unclear which are of potential clinical utility. In this systematic review, we search EMBASE via OVID, MEDLINE via PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv and arXiv for published papers and preprints uploaded from January 1, 2020 to October 3, 2020 which describe new machine learning models for the diagnosis or prognosis of COVID-19 from CXR or CT images. Our search identified 2,212 studies, of which 415 were included after initial screening and, after quality screening, 61 studies were included in this systematic review. Our review finds that none of the models identified are of potential clinical use due to methodological flaws and/or underlying biases. This is a major weakness, given the urgency with which validated COVID-19 models are needed. To address this, we give many recommendations which, if followed, will solve these issues and lead to higher quality model development and well documented manuscripts.