IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0339892.html

Banana 0.9: An open-source, reproducible medical imaging system for low-resource gastric cancer screening

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoqi Hu

Abstract

Background: Gastric cancer remains a major global health burden, particularly in East Asia, yet early-detection programs are often limited by computational constraints, variable imaging quality, and uneven resource availability across clinical settings. Existing AI models for CT analysis frequently require GPU-accelerated infrastructure and offer limited transparency or reproducibility, reducing their suitability for deployment in low-resource hospitals. To address these gaps, we developed and publicly released Banana 0.9, an open-source, CPU-based medical imaging framework intended to support fully reproducible, CT-based gastric cancer screening workflows. Banana 0.9 serves as a proof-of-concept milestone toward a broader, cross-cancer screening platform emphasizing interpretability, accessibility, and transparent methodology. Methods: Banana 0.9 was implemented as a modular, GPU-free CT imaging pipeline using deterministic Hounsfield-unit (HU) rules for organ and region-of-interest segmentation, and a fully open-source architecture for reproducibility. The system accepts DICOM, NIfTI, and ZIP inputs, and includes optional YAML-configured biomarker simulations (TriOx) and conceptual clinical risk-factor modules. These components are exploratory and intended as proof-of-concept simulations rather than validated clinical predictors. An automatic dual-audience reporting component generates structured summaries for both clinicians and patients. Internal evaluations used 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, incorporating literature-derived Helicobacter pylori prevalence estimates and imaging statistics from the TCGA-STAD dataset. To explore potential deployment variability, experiments were conducted under simulated “urban” (higher-quality imaging, complete metadata) and “rural” (lower resolution, partial metadata) screening conditions. For external assessment, we applied the pipeline to 773 independent CT scans from the AbdomenCT-1K TumorSubset. Because this dataset lacks segmentation ground truth, the experiment was used to evaluate cross-dataset reproducibility and stability, without retraining or parameter tuning, thus reflecting reproducibility rather than accuracy assessment. An anonymized English summary of the external validation process is provided in Supplementary File S1. All source code, configuration files, and example data are publicly available to support end-to-end transparency and reproducibility. Results: Across 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations representing urban and rural screening conditions, Banana 0.9 produced a simulation-derived mean AUC of 0.87 (95% CI 0.84–0.90). Estimated computational demand was reduced by more than 80%, with model-based projections suggesting a ~ 60% decrease in average per-patient screening costs relative to conventional GPU-dependent workflows, an estimate based on assumptions regarding typical hardware pricing, device lifespan, and energy consumption. Simulated detection rates increased from 70% to 85% under “urban” conditions and from 65% to 80% under “rural” conditions. For external assessment, Banana 0.9 processed 773 independent CT scans from the AbdomenCT-1K TumorSubset with 100% successful execution and without retraining or parameter adjustment. Although this dataset does not provide segmentation ground truth, no instability or failure modes were observed relative to internal simulations, indicating reproducible operation across heterogeneous imaging domains. Conclusions: Banana 0.9 offers an open, transparent, and GPU-free imaging framework aimed at improving reproducibility and accessibility in gastric cancer screening workflows. Using internal Monte Carlo simulations and external execution on an independent CT dataset, the system demonstrated consistent and reproducible operation without retraining or parameter adjustment, providing preliminary evidence of stability across heterogeneous imaging conditions. While the present evaluation relies on simulated performance estimates and non-annotated external data, the modular architecture, openly available codebase, and low computational requirements position Banana 0.9 as a practical starting point for future extensions toward clinically validated, multi-cancer CT screening tools aligned with FAIR data principles and global health needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoqi Hu, 2026. "Banana 0.9: An open-source, reproducible medical imaging system for low-resource gastric cancer screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(2), pages 1-13, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339892
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339892
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339892&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0339892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lena Maier-Hein & Matthias Eisenmann & Annika Reinke & Sinan Onogur & Marko Stankovic & Patrick Scholz & Tal Arbel & Hrvoje Bogunovic & Andrew P. Bradley & Aaron Carass & Carolin Feldmann & Alejandro , 2018. "Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ezequiel Rosa & Mauricio Reyes & Sook-Lei Liew & Alexandre Hutton & Roland Wiest & Johannes Kaesmacher & Uta Hanning & Arsany Hakim & Richard Zubal & Waldo Valenzuela & David Robben & Diana M. Sima & , 2025. "DeepISLES: a clinically validated ischemic stroke segmentation model from the ISLES'22 challenge," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Maximilian Zenk & Ujjwal Baid & Sarthak Pati & Akis Linardos & Brandon Edwards & Micah Sheller & Patrick Foley & Alejandro Aristizabal & David Zimmerer & Alexey Gruzdev & Jason Martin & Russell T. Shi, 2025. "Towards fair decentralized benchmarking of healthcare AI algorithms with the Federated Tumor Segmentation (FeTS) challenge," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Michela Antonelli & Annika Reinke & Spyridon Bakas & Keyvan Farahani & Annette Kopp-Schneider & Bennett A. Landman & Geert Litjens & Bjoern Menze & Olaf Ronneberger & Ronald M. Summers & Bram Ginneken, 2022. "The Medical Segmentation Decathlon," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Christina Fell & Mahnaz Mohammadi & David Morrison & Ognjen Arandjelovic & Peter Caie & David Harris-Birtill, 2022. "Reproducibility of deep learning in digital pathology whole slide image analysis," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(12), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Yashvardhan Jain & Leah L. Godwin & Sripad Joshi & Shriya Mandarapu & Trang Le & Cecilia Lindskog & Emma Lundberg & Katy Börner, 2023. "Segmenting functional tissue units across human organs using community-driven development of generalizable machine learning algorithms," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339892. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.