Less Contouring, More Accuracy: Lesion-Guided ROI Deep Learning for Ovarian Ultrasound Classification
Organizations: Department of Medicine, Danube Private University (DPU), Krems, Austria. · Austrian Centre for Medical Innovation and Technology (ACMIT), Wiener Neustadt, Austria. · Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Science, Urmia, Iran.
Abstract
Ovarian lesion classification using transvaginal ultrasound remains challenging due to overlapping imaging characteristics and the dependence on expert interpretation. This study investigates whether lesion-guided region-of-interest (ROI) deep learning can achieve competitive diagnostic performance while reducing the annotation burden associated with pixel-level lesion segmentation. Two publicly available ovarian ultrasound datasets were evaluated: the Multi-Modality Ovarian Tumor Ultrasound (MMOTU) dataset for eight-class classification and the Ovarian Ultrasound Dataset (OUD) for binary classification. Four strategies were compared under a unified framework: global image-based deep learning, lesion-guided ROI-based deep learning, lesion contour-based deep learning, and contour-based radiomics with machine learning classifiers. Four deep learning architectures, MaxViT-Tiny, Swin Transformer, EfficientNet-B7, and ResNet18, were evaluated. Radiomics models were developed using support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, and artificial neural network classifiers, with ANOVA-based feature selection applied for the lower-sample OUD dataset. The lesion-guided ROI strategy achieved the strongest overall performance, with MaxViT-Tiny obtaining 93.10% accuracy and an AUC of 0.99 on MMOTU and 97.56% accuracy and an AUC of 0.99 on OUD. The contour-based approach achieved comparable accuracy but required substantially higher annotation effort. These findings demonstrate that lesion-guided ROI deep learning provides an effective balance between diagnostic performance and annotation efficiency, offering a practical approach for scalable AI-assisted ovarian ultrasound analysis
Figures & tables
| Data | Model | Top-1 Accuracy (%) | Top-2 Accuracy (%) | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMOTU | MaxViT-Tiny | 81.57 [76.72, 85.78] | 90.09 [86.21, 93.53] | 96.69 [90.80, 100.00] | 81.57 [76.72, 85.78] | 0.94 [0.92, 0.96] |
| Swin | 78.45 [73.28, 83.62] | 91.00 [86.21, 93.55] | 96.22 [89.23, 100.00] | 78.45 [73.28, 83.62] | 0.95 [0.9386, 0.97] | |
| EfficientNet-B7 | 79.31 [74.14, 84.48] | 89.66 [85.34, 93.10] | 96.24 [89.48, 100.00] | 79.31 [74.14, 84.48] | 0.95 [0.93, 0.97] | |
| ResNet18 | 71.12 [65.09, 76.72] | 85.78 [80.60, 90.09] | 95.68 [88.43, 99.01] | 71.12 [65.09, 76.72] | 0.93 [0.91, 0.95] | |
| OUD | MaxViT-Tiny | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 94.97 [86.80, 100.00] | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 0.99 [0.96, 1.00] |
| EfficientNet-B7 | 90.24 [80.49, 97.56] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 87.54 [78.05, 97.56] | 90.24 [80.49, 97.56] | 0.99 [0.96, 1.00] |
| Data | Model | Top-1 Accuracy (%) | Top-2 Accuracy (%) | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMOTU | MaxViT-Tiny | 93.10 [89.66, 96.12] | 96.98 [94.83, 99.14] | 98.99 [94.66, 100.00] | 93.10 [89.66, 96.12] | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] |
| EfficientNet-B7 | 88.79 [84.48, 92.67] | 96.55 [93.97, 98.71] | 98.91 [94.51, 100.00] | 88.79 [84.48, 92.67] | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] | |
| Swin | 87.07 [82.76, 90.95] | 98.28 [96.55, 99.57] | 97.77 [92.86, 100.00] | 87.07 [82.76, 90.95] | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] | |
| ResNet18 | 85.78 [81.03, 90.10] | 93.97 [90.95, 96.56] | 98.49 [93.66, 100.00] | 85.78 [81.03, 90.10] | 0.97 [0.96, 0.98] | |
| OUD | MaxViT-Tiny | 97.56 [92.68, 100.00] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 98.09 [93.58, 100.00] | 97.56 [92.68, 100.00] | 0.99 [0.98, 1.00] |
| EfficientNet-B7 | 92.68 [82.93, 100.00] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 94.28 [90.81, 100.00] | 92.68 [82.93, 100.00] | 0.97 [0.92, 1.00] |
| Dataset | Model | Top-1 Accuracy (%) | Top-2 Accuracy (%) | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMOTU | MaxViT-Tiny | 91.81 [88.36, 95.26] | 96.98 [94.83, 99.14] | 98.97 [95.31, 100.00] | 91.81 [88.36, 95.26] | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] |
| EfficientNet-B7 | 91.38 [87.50, 94.40] | 95.69 [92.67, 98.28] | 99.00 [96.01, 100.00] | 91.38 [87.50, 94.40] | 0.99 [0.9855, 0.99] | |
| Swin | 86.21 [81.47, 90.52] | 96.98 [94.83, 98.72] | 97.87 [94.31, 100.00] | 86.21 [81.47, 90.52] | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] | |
| ResNet18 | 85.78 [81.03, 90.10] | 93.97 [90.95, 96.56] | 98.49 [95.10, 100.00] | 85.78 [81.03, 90.10] | 0.98 [0.97, 0.99] | |
| OUD | MaxViT-Tiny | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 96.18 [89.10, 100.00] | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 0.99 [0.98, 1.00] |
| EfficientNet-B7 | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 96.18 [89.10, 100.00] | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 0.99 [0.97, 1.00] |
| Dataset | Classifier | Top-1 Accuracy (%) | Top-2 Accuracy (%) | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMOTU | ANN | 72.41 [66.81, 77.59] | 84.05 [79.31, 88.36] | 94.83 [93.51, 96.08] | 72.41 [66.81, 77.59] | 0.92 [0.90, 0.94] |
| KNN | 71.55 [65.09, 76.72] | 84.91 [80.17, 89.23] | 94.32 [92.78, 95.60] | 71.55 [65.09, 76.72] | 0.91 [0.88, 0.93] | |
| SVM-RBF | 74.28 [67.67, 78.88] | 87.50 [83.19, 91.38] | 94.93 [93.80, 96.10] | 74.28 [67.67, 78.88] | 0.93 [0.91, 0.95] | |
| OUD | ANN | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 96.18 [89.45, 100.00] | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 0.98 [0.93, 1.00] |
| KNN | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 96.18 [89.45, 100.00] | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 0.97 [0.92, 1.00] | |
| SVM-RBF | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 100.00 [100.00, 100.00] | 96.18 [89.45, 100.00] | 95.12 [87.80, 100.00] | 0.95 [0.86, 1.00] |
| Study (Year) | Dataset | Task | Method | Best Accuracy | AUC |
| (2024) Pham and Le (2024) | MMOTU (public) | 8-class | YOLOv8x | 70.6% (mAP50) | – |
| (2025) Zhao et al. (2022) | MMOTU (public) | 8-class | EfficientNetV2-M (whole image) | 80.60% | – |
| (2026) Alsubai et al. (2026) | MMOTU (public) | 8-class | EfficientOvaNet (EfficientNet-B3, ROI + global; pixel masks) | 91.9% | 0.980 |
| Proposed | MMOTU (public) | 8-class | Lesion-guided ROI + MaxViT-Tiny (single model, bounding box) | 93.10% | 0.991 |
| (2025) Borna et al. (2025) | OUD (public) | 3-class (normal/DF/PCO) | ResNet18 | 76.2% | – |
| (2025) Borna et al. (2025) | OUD (Binary) | 2-class DF vs PCO | Global image ResNet18 architecture-matched baseline | 85.37% | 0.879 |