Efficient labelling for efficient deep learning: the benefit of a multiple-image-ranking method to generate high volume training data applied to ventricular slice level classification in cardiac MRI.

BACKGROUND

Getting the most value from expert clinicians' limited labelling time is a major challenge for artificial intelligence (AI) development in clinical imaging. We present a novel method for ground-truth labelling of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) image data by leveraging multiple clinician experts ranking multiple images on a single ordinal axis, rather than manual labelling of one image at a time. We apply this strategy to train a deep learning (DL) model to classify the anatomical position of CMR images. This allows the automated removal of slices that do not contain the left ventricular (LV) myocardium.

METHODS

Anonymised LV short-axis slices from 300 random scans (3,552 individual images) were extracted. Each image's anatomical position relative to the LV was labelled using two different strategies performed for 5 hours each: (I) 'one-image-at-a-time': each image labelled according to its position: 'too basal', 'LV', or 'too apical' individually by one of three experts; and (II) 'multiple-image-ranking': three independent experts ordered slices according to their relative position from 'most-basal' to 'most apical' in batches of eight until each image had been viewed at least 3 times. Two convolutional neural networks were trained for a three-way classification task (each model using data from one labelling strategy). The models' performance was evaluated by accuracy, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC AUC).

RESULTS

After excluding images with artefact, 3,323 images were labelled by both strategies. The model trained using labels from the 'multiple-image-ranking strategy' performed better than the model using the 'one-image-at-a-time' labelling strategy (accuracy 86% 72%, P=0.02; F1-score 0.86 0.75; ROC AUC 0.95 0.86). For expert clinicians performing this task manually the intra-observer variability was low (Cohen's κ=0.90), but the inter-observer variability was higher (Cohen's κ=0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

We present proof of concept that, given the same clinician labelling effort, comparing multiple images side-by-side using a 'multiple-image-ranking' strategy achieves ground truth labels for DL more accurately than by classifying images individually. We demonstrate a potential clinical application: the automatic removal of unrequired CMR images. This leads to increased efficiency by focussing human and machine attention on images which are needed to answer clinical questions.