Application of Deep Learning in Neuroradiology: Automated
Detection of Basal Ganglia Hemorrhage using 2D-Convolutional
Neural Networks.
Vishal Desai,1 Adam E. Flanders,1 Paras Lakhani1*
1.

Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Sidney Kimmel Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.
*Corresponding Author, email: Paras.lakhani@jefferson.edu

Abstract— Purpose: Deep learning techniques have achieved
high accuracy in image classification tasks, and there is interest
in applicability to neuroimaging critical findings. This study
evaluates the efficacy of 2D deep convolutional neural networks
(DCNNs) for detecting basal ganglia (BG) hemorrhage on
noncontrast head CT. Methods: 170 unique de-identified
HIPAA-compliant noncontrast head CTs were obtained, those
with and without BG hemorrhage. 110 cases were held-out for
test, and 60 were split into training (45) and validation (15),
consisting of 20 right, 20 left, and 20 no BG hemorrhage. Data
augmentation was performed to increase size and variation of
the training dataset by 48-fold. Two DCNNs were used to
classify the images—AlexNet and GoogLeNet—using untrained
networks and those pre-trained on ImageNet. Area under the
curves (AUCs) for the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC)
curves were calculated, using the DeLong method for statistical
comparison of ROCs. Results: The best performing model was
the pre-trained augmented GoogLeNet, which had an AUC of
1.00 in classification of hemorrhage. Preprocessing
augmentation increased accuracy for all networks (p<0.001),
and pretrained networks outperformed untrained ones
(p<0.001) for the unaugmented models. The best performing
GoogLeNet model (AUC 1.00) outperformed the best
performing AlexNet model (AUC 0.95)(p=0.01). Conclusion:
For this dataset, the best performing DCNN identified BG
hemorrhage on noncontrast head CT with an AUC of 1.00.
Pretrained networks and data augmentation increased
classifier accuracy. Future prospective research would be
important to determine if the accuracy can be maintained on a
larger cohort of patients and for very small hemorrhages.
Index Terms—deep learning, intracranial hemorrhage, basal
ganglia, convolutional neural networks

I. INTRODUCTION

Basal ganglia hemorrhage is a type of intracerebral
hemorrhage (ICH), and is associated with long-standing
hypertension.1–3
Along with other forms of ICH, it is
considered a neurologic emergency. The imaging modality
of choice to detect such hemorrhages is non-contrast head
CT given its wide availability, speed at which it can be
performed, and the very high sensitivity and specificity for
detecting acute hemorrhage.4

The American Heart Association and American Stroke
Association note that timely diagnosis and aggressive early
management is very important in ICH, as affected patients
commonly deteriorate within the first few hours after onset. 5
As such, an automated solution to identify such hemorrhages
may be helpful to decrease time to diagnosis, and more
readily triage appropriate care. Prior work with computer
aided detection (CAD) has shown success in automated
segmentation of ICH.6 In addition, one study using CAD
achieved 95% sensitivity and 89% specificity for detection
of ICH using pre-processing techniques and a knowledgebased classification system.7 Another study using machine
learning techniques was able to achieve 96% accuracy for
detecting ICH using pre-processing techniques, feature
selection, and a fuzzy classifier .8
Based on the recent success in the ImageNet Large Scale
Visual Recognition Competition, deep convolutional neural
networks (DCNNs) are considered state-of-the-art for image
classification.9 While convolutional neural networks have
been around for many years, only recently have we seen
their increase used due to availability of high-performing
graphics processing units (GPU) and availability of many
open-source frameworks. Since 2012, deep convolutional
neural networks (DCNN) have been utilized by all winning
entries in ILSVRC, resulting in a drop in top-5 classification
error rate from 25% in 2011 to 3% more recently with some
of the latest architectures.10
Application of deep learning in radiology has found
promising results in multiple modalities. Some recent
examples include brain segmentation on MRI,11 pancreatic
segmentation,12 knee cartilage evaluation,13 detection of
pleural effusion and cardiomegaly on chest radiographs,14
detection of tuberculosis on chest radiographs,15 and
intracranial critical findings.16
In this study, we focus on identifying a common site of
hemorrhagic stroke, the basal ganglia. We evaluate the
efficacy of automated detection of basal ganglia hemorrhage
on noncontrast head CTs using two DCNNs – AlexNet17 and
GooLeNet,18 the winners of the 2012 and 2014 ImageNet

Page 1 of 7

Datasets:
This was a retrospective study using de-identified and
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) compliant datasets from Thomas Jefferson
University Hospital, PA, U.S.A. To create the datasets, the
institutional Radiology Information System (RIS) database
was searched over a 12-month period between May 2016 May 2017 for patients with basal ganglia hemorrhage and
for patients without any acute intracranial pathology on noncontrast head CT. All CT studies were verified by two
board-certified radiologists, the author of the final report,
and by an independent board-certified radiologist (P.L.). The
terms “basal ganglia, hemorrhage, hematoma, and bleed”
were entered into the database using multiple permutations.
Patients with brain tumors and prior cranial surgery were
excluded.
170 unique patients were identified. 110 of these patients
were held out and placed in the test dataset, consisting of 55
with BG hemorrhage, and 55 without hemorrhage. The
remaining 60 patients were used for training and validation,
divided in a 75/25 ratio, with 45 cases for training and 15
cases for validation. Of these 60 training/validation cases,
20 consisted of right basal ganglia hemorrhage (15 training +
5 validation), 20 left basal ganglia hemorrhage (15 training +
5 validation), and 20 no intracranial hemorrhage (15 training
+ 5 validation). Seven cases with basal ganglia calcifications
(mimic of BG hemorrhage) were included in the datasets,
four for training and 3 in the test-dataset. The training set
was used to train the algorithm, validation set for model
selection, and test set for assessment of the final chosen
model. 110 test cases were chose to provide a 95%
confidence interval of ±7.5% based on estimated accuracy of
the best-performing models on the accuracy on the
validation datasets.19
Study Design:
For each head CT in the training dataset, several axial key
images were obtained near or at the level of the basal
ganglia, which were determined by two radiologists (V.D.,
P.L.). This sometimes included images one slice above
and/or below the basal ganglia, and approximately 3-5
images at the level of the basal ganglia. Approximately 4-6
images were saved per study depending on the scan angle,
slice thickness (range 2.5-5 mm), and, if present, size of the
hemorrhage. A total of 308 unique DICOM (Digital Imaging
and Communications in Medicine) images at the levels of
interest were obtained from 60 non-contrast head CTs (20
with right basal ganglia hemorrhage, 20 with left basal

GoogLeNet

II. METHODS

ganglia hemorrhage, and 20 without hemorrhage). The
images were resized to 256 x 256 pixels (from 512 x 512
originally) and converted into Portable Network Graphics
(PNG) format. The images were loaded onto a workstation
running the DIGITS deep learning GPU training system
(DIGITS 4.0, Nvidia Corporation, Santa Clara, CA) running
Ubuntu 14.04, Caffe deep learning framework (Nvidia fork),
CUDA 8.0, and cuDNN dependencies (Nvidia Corporation,
Santa Clara, CA) for graphics processing unit (GPU)
acceleration. The computer contained an Intel i5 3570k
3.4gHz processor, 4TB hard disk space, 32gb RAM, and a
CUDA-enabled NVIDIA Maxwell Titan X 12Gb GPU
(Nvidia Corporation, Santa Clara, CA).

AlexNet

Large Scale Visual Recognition Competition respectively.

Untrained

Pre-trained

Untrained

Pre-trained

Unaugmented
Dataset

Classifer 1

Augmented
Dataset

Classifier 2

Unaugmented
Dataset

Classifier 3

Augmented
Dataset

Classifier 4

Unaugmented
Dataset

Classifier 5

Augmented
Dataset

Classifier 6

Unaugmented
Dataset

Classifier 7

Augmented
Dataset

Classifier 8

Figure 1: Eight different models were evaluated, using two
different architectures (AlexNet and GoogLeNet), including
pretrained and untrained networks, and with and without extra
augmentation.

Multiple sequential pre-processing augmentation techniques
were performed, including three different CT window-width
(WW) and window-levels (WL) ( “brain” 80/35 WW/WL,
“acute blood” 220/95 WW/WL, and “stroke” 27/33
WW/WL), 10% magnification, rotation of 15 & 30 degrees,
blur and edge enhancement. This pre-processing was
performed using ImageJ v1.50i (National Institutes of
Health, U.S.A.) and XnConvert v1.73 (XnSoft, France).
Images were also augmented in real-time during the training
process using prebuilt options within the Caffe framework, 16
including random cropping of 227 x 227 pixels for AlexNet
and 224 x 224 pixels for GoogLeNet, and mean wholeimage subtraction. After image augmentation using preprocessing detailed above, the new training dataset totaled
11,088 images, which was a 48-fold increase in number of
images from the originals.

Page 2 of 7

Two deep convolutional neural networks architectures were
used—AlexNet and GoogLeNet, using unaugmented and
augmented datasets, and those untrained and pre-trained on
ImageNet. Taking the permutation of the two datasets
(unaugmented and augmented datasets), two neural networks
(AlexNet and GoogLeNet), and two neural network types
(pre-trained and untrained), a total of 8 trained models were
created (Figure 1). Pre-trained networks were obtained from
the Caffe Model Zoo (http://caffe.berkeleyvision.org), Berkeley,
CA), an open-access repository of pre-trained models for use
with Caffe,20 and were previously trained on over 1 million
every-day color images from ImageNet.9
The following solver parameters were used for training
AlexNet: 90 epochs, base learning rate of 0.01 for untrained
models and 0.001 for pre-trained models, stochastic gradient
descent, step-down 33%, and gamma of 0.5. For
GoogLeNet, the parameters were: 40 epochs, base learning
rate of 0.01 for untrained models and 0.001 for pre-trained
models, stochastic gradient descent, step-down 33%, and
gamma of 0.5. Categorical cross-entropy was used for the
loss function. The solver parameters including number of
epochs were determined after reviewing the training and
validation loss curves after multiple runs of the data, with
the goal of achieving the lowest validation loss, and stopping
training after plateau in the loss. For pretrained networks, we
randomized the weights of the final fully-connected layer of
the networks to learn from the CT images, and employed a
fine-tuning strategy where all layers were open to learn at a
reduced base learning rate.

dataset had significantly better AUC than those trained with
the smaller, unaugmented dataset in all scenarios–pre-trained
GoogLeNet and AlexNet and untrained GoogLeNet and
AlexNet (Figure 2 & 3, Table 2). The pre-trained classifier
was significantly better than the untrained classifier for
GoogLeNet when using the unaugmented dataset (Table 3).
There was no significant difference in AUC between the
untrained and pretrained GoogLeNet and AlexNet classifiers
when using the augmented dataset (Table 4).
The best performing classifiers were the augmented
untrained and pre-trained GoogLeNet DCNN, which had an
AUC of 0.99 and 1.0 respectively in identifying BG
hemorrhage (Table 1). The augmented GoogLeNet
classifiers correctly identified 55/55 cases of BG
hemorrhage in the test dataset, including the laterality of the
bleed (sensitivity 100%). The pre-trained classifier correctly
labeled 55/55 cases without hemorrhage (specificity 100%)
while the untrained classifier had one false positive in a case
with asymmetric basal ganglia calcifications (specificity
96.4%).
The augmented untrained AlexNet classifier retained a high
AUC (0.96), with sensitivity for hemorrhage at 100% but
with a lower specificity at 80%, particularly mislabeling
basal ganglia calcifications as hemorrhages (Figure 4).
Overall, the augmented pre-trained GoogLeNet classifier
had greater accuracy compared to the AlexNet classifiers
(Table 5, Figure 3). The best performing GoogLeNet model
(AUC 1.00) outperformed the best performing AlexNet
model (AUC 0.95)(p=0.01).

Statistical Analysis:
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area
under the curves (AUC) were determined using the pROC
package (ver. 1.7.3) for R (ver. 3.3.1), utilizing the DeLong
method for statistical comparison of ROCs.21,22 P-values <
0.05 were considered statistically significant.
IRB approval:
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board
at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA,
U.S.A.

III. RESULTS
The average size of the hemorrhages for the test dataset was
2.8±1.9cm in the transverse dimension, and 3.6±2.7 cm in
the anteroposterior dimension.
The smallest two
hemorrhages were 0.5 x 1.1cm and 0.7 x 0.7cm, and the
largest was 7.1 x 11.2cm.
Table 1 contains area under the curve (AUC) calculations
for all classifiers. The classifiers trained with the augmented

Table 1: AUC for All Classifiers
Classifier

Area Under the Curve

Unaugmented AlexNet-Untrained

0.57 (0.46-0.68)

Unaugmented AlexNet-Pretrained
Unaugmented GoogLeNetUntrained
Unaugmented GoogLeNetPretrained
Augmented AlexNet-Untrained

0.81 (0.74-0.89)

Augmented AlexNet-Pretrained

0.92 (0.87-0.97)

0.60 (0.49-0.70)
0.89 (0.83-0.95)
0.95 (0.92-0.99)

Augmented GoogLeNet-Untrained

0.99 (0.96-1.00)

Augmented GoogLeNet-Pretrained

1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Parentheses reflects 95% confidence interval

IV. DISCUSSION:
Recent advances in technology have enabled the use of
machine learning, specifically deep learning, to be applied to
radiologic images. Machine learning allows computers to
analyze data and perform tasks without being explicitly

Page 3 of 7

programmed to do so.23 Deep artificial neural networks, on
the other hand, is a relatively newer branch of machine
learning, which consists of multiple hidden layers, and
excels with high dimension datasets such as images. For this
study, we used supervised (pre-labeled) images to train our

added laterality to our classifier, which is a simple method to
verify appropriate training. So, if the classifier is erroneously
labeling right basal ganglia hemorrhages as left, we can
assume that the network is inappropriately trained.

Table 2: AUC Comparison of Classifiers with Unaugmented and
Augmented Datasets
Classifier

Unaugmented
AUC

Augmented
AUC

p-value

AlexNetUntrained
AlexNetPretrained
GoogLeNetUntrained
GoogLeNetPretrained

0.57

0.95

p<0.001

0.82

0.92

p=0.001

0.60

0.99

p<0.001

0.89

1.00

p<0.001

basal ganglia hemorrhage classifiers. DCNNs consist of a
varying number of interconnected layers, and each layer
contains numerous independent “nodes” or “neurons” which
analyze a certain feature. Since all layers are interconnected,
this creates a network where each data point is constantly
referenced against all other layers to provide the best
possible prediction.
Deep neural networks have been described as “black boxes,”
where the reasoning behind a network’s prediction may not
be readily apparent.24 For medical imaging, ensuring the
network has been properly trained and performs accurately
in unknown cases is crucial. The black box scenario is
compounded by the fact that DCNNs are extremely large
and complex.

Table 3: AUC Comparison of Untrained and Pre-trained
Classifiers with Unaugmented Dataset
Classifier
AlexNet,
Unaugmented
GoogLeNet,
Unaugmented

Untrained
AUC
0.57

Pre-trained
AUC
0.81

p<0.001

0.60

0.89

p<0.001

Figure 2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve
comparing the Untrained AlexNet with and without extra
augmentation, with an AUC of 0.95 and 0.57 respectively,
p<0.0001.

Activations within a layer can also offer confidence that the
network is being activated by the area of interest.26 Figure 6
demonstrates a strong activation in 2nd convolutional layer of
the pretrained GoogLeNet classifier followed by a correct
prediction of left basal ganglia hemorrhage with 100%
confidence.26

p-value

However, several strategies do exist to get insight into what
is contributing to the network’s prediction.24-26 One
technique is to obscure the area of interest and then assess
how this affects the network’s prediction.25 For instance,
obscuring a basal ganglia hematoma by overlaying a gray
box should result in a prediction of “no basal ganglia
hemorrhage” (if the network has learned what was intended)
(Figure 5). Rather than manually processing images, we

One helpful step in building an accurate image classifier is
augmentation.27 The results of our study demonstrate the
statistically significant difference in AUCs among the
unaugmented and augmented datasets (Table 2). It has been
demonstrated that the more cases and variations supplied to
the neural network during training, the better the
performance and generalization of the DCNN.27
For the basal ganglia classifier, we ensured variety in the
initial, unaugmented dataset by including cases with basal
ganglia calcifications, different sized hemorrhages, multicompartmental hemorrhage, and hydrocephalus. Then, with
image augmentation we take that variety of cases and expose
it to the neural network in different ways by introducing
varying degrees of blur, edge enhancement, rotation, zoom,

Page 4 of 7

windowing and other image processing techniques. This
simulates variations in the CT scan that might be
encountered on a day-to-day basis, improving generalization
of our classifier without needing to acquire extra cases. A
degree of manual input is certainly required in the case

layers for AlexNet) and employs an “inception” module with
a “bottleneck” design.18,28 The inception module uses
smaller 1x1 convolutions to reduce the number of variables
that flow into the layer, before larger convolutions, which
improves computational efficiency and may improve
predictions.28
Table 5: AUC Comparison of GoogLeNet and AlexNet with
Augmented Dataset

Figure 3: ROC curves of the pretrained AlexNet and GoogLeNet
models with extra augmentation. The best-performing pretrained
GoogLeNet model (AUC 1.00) performed better than the
corresponding AlexNet model (AUC 0.92), p=0.006.

Classifier

AlexNet

GoogLeNet

p-value

Untrained,
Augmented
AUC
Pretrained,
Augmented
AUC

0.95

0.99

p=0.12

0.92

1.00

p=0.006

We also found that with small (unaugmented) datasets, the
networks pre-trained with everyday images on ImageNet
were superior to untrained networks. However, with larger
(augmented) datasets, there was no significant difference
between pre-trained and untrained networks (Table 4).
Since all images, including medical images, share basic lowlevel features such as edges, lines and blobs, a network pretrained on non-medical images can help prime the initial
layers of the network through transfer learning.29 Then, the
interconnected layers could re-learn from the CT images
provided. This appeared less significant with large datasets,
perhaps because there was enough input data to robustly
train the initial layers without pretraining.

selection process. For instance, we chose to specifically
include cases with basal ganglia calcifications to decrease
our false positive rate. The augmented GoogLeNet
classifiers successfully labeled basal ganglia calcifications as
“no hemorrhage” while AlexNet had difficulty with dense
asymmetric calcifications, possibly related to the extra depth
of the classifier.
Table 4: AUC Comparison of Untrained and Pre-trained
Classifiers with Augmented Dataset
Classifier
AlexNet,
Augmented
GoogLeNet,
Augmented

Untrained
AUC
0.95

Pre-trained
AUC
0.92

p-value

0.99

1.00

p=0.22

p=0.27

GoogLeNet was superior to AlexNet using the augmented
dataset (Table 5), although only statistically significant for
the pre-trained models. This is likely due to the fact that
GoogLeNet is a much deeper network (22 layers versus 8

Figure 4: Axial noncontrast CT through the basal ganglia region
(ww/wl: 80/35) demonstrating bilateral basal ganglia calcification
(white arrows). This image was incorrectly predicted as
hemorrhage by all classifiers except for the best-performing
pretrained, augmented GoogLeNet model.

Page 5 of 7

One of the common problems with deep learning is
overfitting, or more simply, lack of generalizability. 30 In this
scenario, the classifier maintains high prediction accuracy on
the training dataset but does poorer with unknown cases,
which can happen when the training dataset is small. The
models employed several strategies to help overcome this,
including increase in the size and variety of the dataset by
pre-processing augmentation, and use of dropout—model
regularization technique—which has been shown to help
with overfitting.27,30

Figure 5: Axial non-contrast CT through the basal ganglia region
(ww/wl: 220/95). The right image shows an acute hemorrhage in
the right basal ganglia (white arrow), which is correctly predicted
by the classifier (100% confidence). In the left image, the
hemorrhage is obscured by a gray box, which changes the
prediction to “no hemorrhage.” This technique can help
demonstrate that the model is assessing the appropriate region.

generalizable to new unforeseen cases.
There are limitations to this study. While the image classifier
we generated serves as a great proof-of-concept that deep
learning can accurately detect basal ganglia hemorrhage,
more research is needed to demonstrate its accuracy with
larger cohorts. It is unknown how well the model would do
in scenarios where there is significant artifact, prior
cerebrovascular conditions such as brain tumors, or altered
anatomy from prior surgery. In addition, it is unclear how
sensitive the algorithm would be on more subtle
subcentimeter hemorrhages. Most of the hemorrhages were
greater than 1.5cm, although the classifier did detect some
smaller hemorrhages measuring approximately 1cm (10 of
the 55 positive test cases), including one that was 0.5 x
1.1cm and another that was 0.7 x .7cm. Also, this study was
performed retrospectively and the performance of this
classifier prospectively would need to be determined.
Finally, this was a model that used 2D convolutions, and
makes an assessment on a slice-by-slice basis. More research
is needed to determine efficacy compared to 3D CNNs,
which would have the benefit of analyzing the whole head
but at greater computational costs and GPU memory needs.
Before utilization in a clinical scenario, the classifier will
need be trained to learn the normal anatomy of all parts of
the cranium including the vertex and skull bases, rather than
just the basal-ganglia region, so as not to flag normal
structures as hemorrhage.
Despite the limitations, this study establishes a starting point
for building an accurate CT-based image classifier for
hemorrhage. The next steps will be to build a moreencompassing intracranial hemorrhage algorithm, and
address the questions or limitations noted above.
Future work may also include a system where a deep
learning algorithm automatically flags studies as positive or
negative on a reading worklist, where one could then
evaluate its effect on work prioritization and result turnaround-time.
V. CONCLUSIONS:

Figure 6: On the left is an axial CT image at the level of the basal
ganglia (WW/WL: 80/35) containing a left-sided BG hemorrhage.
On the right is an accompanying activation from the 2 nd layer of the
best-performing GoogLeNet model. The small orange-white focus
(white arrow) represents an area activated by the network, and
corresponds to the location of the hemorrhage.

For this dataset, the best performing DCNN identified BG
hemorrhage on noncontrast head CT with an AUC of 1.00.
Pretrained networks and data augmentation increased
classifier accuracy. Future prospective research would be
important to determine if high accuracy can be maintained
on a larger cohort of patients and for very small
hemorrhages.
VI. REFERNCES:

Finally, we assess the trained models with test cases,
previously unseen by the classifiers, and analyze the
predictions (Table 1). This shows that the models can be

1.

Hanley DF, Awad IA, Vespa PM, Martin NA,
Zuccarello M. Hemorrhagic Stroke: Introduction.
Stroke. 2013;44(6 suppl 1).

Page 6 of 7

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Sutherland GR, Auer RN. Primary intracerebral
hemorrhage. J Clin Neurosci. 2006;13(5):511-517.
doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2004.12.012.
Sahni R, Weinberger J. Management of intracerebral
hemorrhage. Vasc Health Risk Manag.
2007;3(5):701-709.
Rincon F, Mayer SA. Clinical review: Critical care
management of spontaneous intracerebral
hemorrhage. Crit Care. 2008;12(6):237.
doi:10.1186/cc7092.
Hemphill JC, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS, Becker
K, Bendok BR, Cushman M, Fung GL, Goldstein
JN, Macdonald RL, Mitchell PH, Scott PA.
Guidelines for the management of spontaneous
intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2015 Jul
1;46(7):2032-60.
Scherer M, Cordes J, Younsi A, Sahin YA, Götz M,
Möhlenbruch M, Stock C, Bösel J, Unterberg A,
Maier-Hein K, Orakcioglu B. Development and
Validation of an Automatic Segmentation Algorithm
for Quantification of Intracerebral Hemorrhage.
Stroke. 2016 Nov 1;47(11):2776-82.
Chan T. Computer aided detection of small acute
intracranial hemorrhage on computer
tomography of brain. Computerized Medical
Imaging and Graphics. 2007 Jul 31;31(4):285-98.
Maduskara P, Acharyyaa M. Automatic
identification of intracranial hemorrhage in noncontrast CT with large slice thickness for trauma
cases. InProc. of SPIE Vol 2009 Feb 26 (Vol. 7260,
pp. 726011-1
Russakovsky O, Deng J, Su H, et al. ImageNet
Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge.
September 2014.
Szegedy, C., Ioffe, S., Vanhoucke, V. and Alemi, A.,
2016. Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact
of residual connections on learning. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1602.07261.
Li R, Zhang W, Suk H-I, et al. Deep learning based
imaging data completion for improved brain disease
diagnosis. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv.
2014;17(Pt 3):305-312.
Roth HR, Farag A, Lu L, Turkbey EB, Summers
RM. Deep convolutional networks for pancreas
segmentation in CT imaging. April 2015.
doi:10.1117/12.2081420.
Prasoon A, Petersen K, Igel C, Lauze F, Dam E,
Nielsen M. Deep Feature Learning for Knee
Cartilage Segmentation Using a Triplanar
Convolutional Neural Network.
Bar Y, Diamant I, Wolf L, Greenspan H. Deep
learning with non-medical training used for chest
pathology identification. In: Hadjiiski LM, Tourassi
GD, eds. ; 2015:94140V. doi:10.1117/12.2083124.
Lakhani P, Sundaram B. Deep Learning at Chest
Radiography: Automated Classification of

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.
28.
29.

30.

Pulmonary Tuberculosis by Using Convolutional
Neural Networks. Radiology. April 2017:162326.
doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162326.
Prevedello LM, Erdal BS, Ryu JL, Little KJ,
Demirer M, Qian S, White RD. Automated Critical
Test Findings Identification and Online Notification
System Using Artificial Intelligence in Imaging.
Radiology. 2017 Jul 3:162664.
Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE. ImageNet
Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural
Networks. 2012:1097-1105.
Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, et al. Going Deeper with
Convolutions.
Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH, Jerome H. The
Elements of Statistical Learning : Data Mining,
Inference, and Prediction.
Jia Y, Shelhamer E, Donahue J, et al. Caffe:
Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature
Embedding. June 2014.
Obuchowski NA. Receiver Operating Characteristic
Curves and Their Use in Radiology. Radiology.
2003;229(1):3-8. doi:10.1148/radiol.2291010898.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL.
Comparing the areas under two or more correlated
receiver operating characteristic curves: a
nonparametric approach. Biometrics.
1988;44(3):837-845.
Wang S, Summers RM. Machine learning and
radiology. Med Image Anal. 2012;16(5):933-951.
doi:10.1016/j.media.2012.02.005.
Yosinski J, Clune J, Nguyen A, Fuchs T, Lipson H.
Understanding Neural Networks Through Deep
Visualization. June 2015.
Zeiler MD, Fergus R. Visualizing and understanding
convolutional networks. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1311.2901. 2013 Nov 12.
Yeager L, Heinrich G, Mancewicz J, Houston M.
Effective Visualizations for Training and
Evaluating Deep Models. Proceedings of the 33rd
International Conference on Machine Learning, New
York, NY, USA, 2016. JMLR
https://icmlviz.github.io/assets/papers/16.pdf
Wu R, Yan S, Shan Y, Dang Q, Sun G, Research B.
Deep Image: Scaling up Image Recognition.
Yu D, Seltzer ML. Improved Bottleneck Features
Using Pretrained Deep Neural Networks.
Yosinski J, Clune J, Bengio Y, Lipson H. How
transferable are features in deep neural networks?
InAdvances in neural information processing
systems 2014 (pp. 3320-3328).
Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I,
Salakhutdinov R. Dropout: A Simple Way to
Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting. J Mach
Learn Res. 2014;15:1929-1958.

Page 7 of 7

