TY - JOUR T1 - Using Adversarial Images to Assess the Stability of Deep Learning Models Trained on Diagnostic Images in Oncology JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.01.17.21249704 SP - 2021.01.17.21249704 AU - Marina Z. Joel AU - Sachin Umrao AU - Enoch Chang AU - Rachel Choi AU - Daniel X. Yang AU - James S. Duncan AU - Antonio Omuro AU - Roy Herbst AU - Harlan M. Krumholz AU - SM Sanjay Aneja Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/08/2021.01.17.21249704.abstract N2 - Purpose Deep learning (DL) models have rapidly become a popular and cost-effective tool for image classification within oncology. A major limitation of DL models is output instability, as small perturbations in input data can dramatically alter model output. The purpose of the study is to investigate the robustness of DL models in the oncologic image domain through the application of adversarial images: manipulated images with small pixel-level perturbations designed to assess the stability of DL models.Experimental Design We examined the impact of adversarial images on the classification accuracies of DL models trained to classify cancerous lesions across three common oncologic imaging modalities (CT, mammogram, and MRI). The CT model was trained to classify malignant lung nodules using the LIDC dataset. The mammogram model was trained to classify malignant breast lesions using the DDSM dataset. The MRI model was trained to classify brain metastases using an institutional dataset. We also explored the utility of an iterative adversarial training approach to improve the stability of DL models to small pixel-level changes.Results Oncologic images showed instability with small pixel-level changes. A pixel-level of perturbation of .004 resulted in a majority of oncologic images to be misclassified by their respective DL models (CT 25.64%, mammogram 23.93%, MRI 6.36%). Adversarial training mitigated improved the stability and robustness of DL models trained on oncologic images compared to naive models [(CT 67.72% vs 26.92%), mammogram (63.39% vs 27.68%), MRI (87.20% vs 24.32%)].Conclusions DL models naively trained on oncologic images exhibited dramatic instability to small pixel-level changes resulting in substantial decreases in accuracy. Adversarial training techniques improved the stability and robustness of DL models to such pixel-level changes. Prior to clinical implementation, adversarial training should be considered to proposed DL models to improve overall performance and safety.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded in part by a Career Enhancement Program Grant (PI: Aneja) from the Yale SPORE in Lung Cancer (1P50CA196530) and by a Conquer Cancer Career Development Award (PI: Aneja), supported by Hayden Family Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the American Society of Clinical Oncology or Conquer Cancer, or Hayden Family Foundation.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines and approved by the Yale University Institutional Review Board (Protocol ID: HIC#2000027592). Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data is available from the authors upon reasonable request. ER -