Stabilize dynamic binning for Wavelet transform output

[vnarayan13]

Recompute bin edges and binwidth to maintain consistent bin count for all normalized stationary wavelet transform outputs.

[JoostJM]

A possible solution could be to apply imageoperations._scaleToOriginalRange, which ensures that the maximum of the filtered image is equal to that of the orignal image. This is currently already applied to the square, squareroot, logarithmic and exponential filters.

Thinking about it now though, this function does not address yet when the minimum changes. This can be done by shifting the filtered image, so that the minimums match after application of the scale (which should be defined in such a way, that after shifting/scaling, the filtered image maximum matches the original maximum). In other words, rescale/shift the filtered image to have it match the range of the original image.

[fedorov]

I wonder if we really need to maintain the bin count constant. Does it really make sense after an operation like wavelet?

[vnarayan13]

I think its OK to not scale the wavelet-filtered grayscale ranges to the original image (assuming first order stats of a decomposition are comparable across images of a dataset).

Rather, compute bincount ("Ng") of the original image similar to in glcm.init: (https://github.com/Radiomics/pyradiomics/blob/master/radiomics/glcm.py#L86

Then, determine the binwidth that produces the above bincount (for each decomposition) and pass that binwidth to the glcm, glrlm, glszm (again, for each decomposition).

I think this best maps the original image bins to their corresponding "wavelet-transformed" bins, without rescaling/compressing data imputed from the transform.

[fedorov]

long time no see @vnarayan13 ! thanks for the comment

[vnarayan13]

Also, I think the loop here to retrieve data = LLL.copy() is redundant since it occurs in the main dec loop: https://github.com/Radiomics/pyradiomics/blob/master/radiomics/imageoperations.py#L217

Also, "data" should be renamed to "approximation_data" and maybe should just be included in the "dec" dict since it is treated the same as the other decompositions? Returning "approximation, ret" was just to mimic the return structure of the 2D function in pywavelets.

[JoostJM]

Currently, it is already possible to set custom kwargs for the separate filters, this enables to use different fixed binwidths for the separate filters (e.g. 25 for original, but 5 for log)

[JoostJM]

Also, I think the loop here to retrieve data = LLL.copy() is redundant since it occurs in the main dec loop: https://github.com/Radiomics/pyradiomics/blob/master/radiomics/imageoperations.py#L217

This first loop is to get data to the correct level specified by start_level. Therefore this loop is not redundant. However, I expect it to be rarely used, as the first level wavelets are also usually considered.

[JoostJM]

@Radiomics/developers Following up on @vnarayan13's idea, is it a solution to use a fixed bincount on all filtered images, which is set by applying the fixed binWidth on the original image? Do we want to make this optional (i.e. provide a setting called "dynamicBinning")?

So in general, I think we have the following options:

• Don't do anything, keep one fixed binWidth
• Allow user to specify binWidths on a per filter basis (current status)
• Normalize images (linear, Z-score) to a fixed range, or a range based on the original image
• dynamic binning: recompute the binWidth on a per filter basis
• dynamic binning: use binWidth on original image, use the resultant binCount on filtered images
• [use a fixed binCount for all binning (Discussed in previous meeting, not advised)]

I suggest we decide on a single way to handle this, or at the very least only supply a very limited number of options.

[vnarayan13]

This might be a case where the results of an analytics/ml pipeline on labelled training data using the above options might determine which one elicits a stronger signal and should be the default opt.

[matteawelch]

Is there a plan to include dynamic binning as a function in future versions?

[sha168]

I’m trying to extract voxel-wise features from the original MR image and its wavelet transforms, but I’m struggling with enabling the “dynamicBinning”.

In my .yaml-file I have tried the following:

imageType: Original: {} Wavelet: {} featureClass: glcm:

• 'Autocorrelation'

• 'JointAverage' setting: normalize: true normalizeScale: 100 interpolator: 'sitkBSpline' resampledPixelSpacing: [2, 2, 2] binWidth: 60 dynamicBinning: true

  voxelArrayShift: 300 label: 1 force2D: false

voxelSetting: kernelRadius: 1 maskedKernel: true initValue: nan voxelBatch: 10000

(am I supposed to provide the "binWidth" parameter for the original image, like I have done here?) However, this gives me the following error code:

--- All found errors --- ["Key 'dynamicBinning' was not defined. Path: '/setting'"] Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 152, in File “/Users/…/radiomics/featureextractor.py”, line 59, in init self._applyParams(paramsFile=args[0]) File “/Users/…/featureextractor.py”, line 158, in _applyParams params = c.validate() File “/Users/…/core.py”, line 167, in validate error_msg=u'.\n - '.join(self.validation_errors))) pykwalify.errors.SchemaError: <SchemaError: error code 2: Schema validation failed:

• Key 'dynamicBinning' was not defined. Path: '/setting'.: Path: '/'>

Did I make a mistake in the parameter-file? I’m using version 2.1.2.post61+g3efae04.

[JoostJM]

@sha168, No your parameter file looks fine. The cause of the error is the PyRadiomics version. You are using the current master, but this does not have the dynamic binning functionality implemented. If you want to use this, you'll need to checkout the branch implement-dynamic-binning, which is located in my fork of PyRadiomics. If you then install from that branch, it should work.

[sha168]

Ok, thanks for the quick reply! Is the bug addressed in this issue https://github.com/Radiomics/pyradiomics/issues/456 fixed in this branch?

[JoostJM]

@sha168, I just rebased the branch on the current master, so if you've checked out the branch with commit af7f32b, then yes.