| Literature DB >> 23840865 |
Hongying Lilian Tang1, Jonathan Goh, Tunde Peto, Bingo Wing-Kuen Ling, Lutfiah Ismail Al Turk, Yin Hu, Su Wang, George Michael Saleh.
Abstract
In any diabetic retinopathy screening program, about two-thirds of patients have no retinopathy. However, on average, it takes a human expert about one and a half times longer to decide an image is normal than to recognize an abnormal case with obvious features. In this work, we present an automated system for filtering out normal cases to facilitate a more effective use of grading time. The key aim with any such tool is to achieve high sensitivity and specificity to ensure patients' safety and service efficiency. There are many challenges to overcome, given the variation of images and characteristics to identify. The system combines computed evidence obtained from various processing stages, including segmentation of candidate regions, classification and contextual analysis through Hidden Markov Models. Furthermore, evolutionary algorithms are employed to optimize the Hidden Markov Models, feature selection and heterogeneous ensemble classifiers. In order to evaluate its capability of identifying normal images across diverse populations, a population-oriented study was undertaken comparing the software's output to grading by humans. In addition, population based studies collect large numbers of images on subjects expected to have no abnormality. These studies expect timely and cost-effective grading. Altogether 9954 previously unseen images taken from various populations were tested. All test images were masked so the automated system had not been exposed to them before. This system was trained using image subregions taken from about 400 sample images. Sensitivities of 92.2% and specificities of 90.4% were achieved varying between populations and population clusters. Of all images the automated system decided to be normal, 98.2% were true normal when compared to the manual grading results. These results demonstrate scalability and strong potential of such an integrated computational intelligence system as an effective tool to assist a grading service.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23840865 PMCID: PMC3698085 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066730
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Fundus images.
a. Haemorrhage; b. MA; c. Drusen; d. Exudates; e. Optic disc; f. Fovea; g. Blood vessel; h. Background; Three images on the top contains DR signs while bottom three have no DR signs, however, the bottom right contains large scale of drusen.
Matrix of detectors and extracted features for classification.
| Features | GBV | GH | GMA | LBV | LB | LDL | LBL |
| Average intensity of region in green component | – | – | – | – | |||
| Average intensity of outside clinical sign candidate region in green component | – | – | – | ||||
| Average hue, saturation, intensity levels of clinical sign candidate region in HSI colour model | – | – | – | ||||
| Ratio of HSI intensity levels between clinical sign candidate region and non-clinical sign candidate region | – | – | – | ||||
| Ratio of green component average intensity between clinical sign candidate region and non-clinical sign candidate regions | – | – | – | ||||
| Area of clinical sign candidate region | – | – | – | – | |||
| Perimeter | – | – | – | ||||
| Statistics generated from the smallest bounding box of clinical sign candidate region | – | ||||||
| Dimension ratio of an object: calculated using major axis over minor axis | – | ||||||
| Circularity | – | – | |||||
| Colour histogram | – | – | – | ||||
| Fourier spectra | – | ||||||
| Principal component analysis (PCA) of colour | – | – | |||||
| Phase symmetry with PCA | – | – | |||||
| Texture Analysis | – | ||||||
| Mean shade corrected clinical sign candidate region | – | ||||||
| Length of clinical sign candidate region | – |
Global blood vessel detector (GBV), global haemorrhages detector (GH), global microaneurysms classifier (GMA), local blood vessel classifier (LBV), local background classifier (LB), local dark lesion classifier (LDL), local bright lesion classifier (LBL).
Number of classifiers in ensembles before and after evolution.
| Detector | Number of original base classifiers | Number of base classifiers after evolution |
| Blood vessel (G) | 180 | 15 |
| Haemorrhages (G) | 180 | 27 |
| Microaneurysms (G) | 180 | 62 |
| Background (G) | 270 | 56 |
| Blood vessesl (G) | 270 | 21 |
| Dark lesion (G) | 180 | 45 |
| Bright lesion (G) | 180 | 32 |
G means it is a global classifier and L indicates a local classifier.
Figure 2Evolution for ensemble and context model.
Breakdown of training samples used.
| Classifier | Images used | Sub-region used | Training sample type | Testing images for EA |
| Blood vessel (G) | 300 | 2789 | Image regions | 1000 |
| Microaneurysms (G) | 100 | 2100 | 15×15 sub-images | 1500 |
| Haemorrhage (G) | 278 | 1785 | Image regions | 1000 |
| Background (L) | 300 | 1750 | 32×32 sub-images | 1000 |
| Dark lesion (L) | 278 | 2100 | 32×32 sub-images | 1000 |
| Blood vessel (L) | 300 | 4210 | 32×32 sub-images | 1000 |
| Bright lesion(L) | 250 | 1889 | 32×32 sub-images | 1000 |
G and L indicate the corresponding classifier is either global or local classifier.
Performances (in %) of various classifier combination strategy.
| Combination strategy | |||||
| Classifier | Best | Average | Sum | Majority vote | EA |
| Blood vessel (G) | 92.63 | 93.68 | 92.77 | 93.03 | 98.97 |
| Haemorrhage (G) | 81.54 | 83.54 | 68.01 | 83.59 | 92.30 |
| Microaneurysms (G) | 79.63 | 81.79 | 81.08 | 81.54 | 83.05 |
| Background (1) (L) | 89.12 | 93.26 | 94.20 | 93.10 | |
| Background (2) (L) | 91.08 | 91.73 | 89.18 | 90.56 | 94.57 |
| Background (3) (L) | 88.12 | 89.92 | 87.58 | 88.67 | |
| Blood vessels (1) (L) | 93.03 | 96.68 | 96.13 | 5.54 | |
| Blood vessels (2) (L) | 93.04 | 93.84 | 92.03 | 94.12 | 7.12 |
| Dark lesion (1) (L) | 83.04 | 84.91 | 78.23 | 83.16 | |
| Dark lesion (2) (L) | 79.97 | 82.52 | 81.21 | 82.89 | 6.23 |
| Bright lesion (1) (L) | 92.95 | 94.04 | 91.89 | 95.02 | |
| Bright lesion (2) (L) | 94.92 | 95.43 | 93.91 | 94.98 | 96.23 |
G means it is a global classifier and L indicates a local classifier.
Selected individual blood vessel classifiers with their accuracies.
| Blood vessel classifiers (represented in their index numbers) | Feature set (1/2) | Accuracy of individual classifier |
| 69 | 1 | 91.67% |
| 64 | 1 | 90.46% |
| 8 | 2 | 89.31% |
| 82 | 1 | 86.68% |
| 63 | 2 | 91.24% |
| 27 | 1 | 90.78% |
| 42 | 2 | 92.11% |
| 68 | 2 | 91.98% |
| 78 | 1 | 73.16% |
| 1 | 1 | 90.02% |
| 46 | 2 | 90.65% |
| 4 | 2 | 89.97% |
| 33 | 2 | 92.24% |
| 72 | 1 | 91.59% |
| 73 | 1 | 90.68% |
Comparison between different evolutionary algorithms.
| Accuracy | |||||||
| Population | Generation | M- HMM | GA- HMM | ||||
| MA | BV | BG | MA | BV | BG | ||
| 30 | 30 | 96.41% | 93.25% | 91.04% | 96.19% | 92.64% | 90.49% |
| 30 | 60 | 96.86% | 93.36% | 91.04% | 96.19% | 92.33% | 91.22% |
| 50 | 30 | 97.04% |
| 91.41% | 93.95% | 93.25% | 91.22% |
| 50 | 60 |
| 92.64% |
| 96.86% | 94.17% | 91.60% |
C-HMM performance.
| Population | Generation | Final no. of Classifiers | Ensemble accuracy | C-HMM accuracy |
| 30 | 30 | 48 | 81.8% | 94.9% |
| 30 | 60 | 56 | 84.1% | 95.4% |
| 50 | 30 | 52 | 85.9% | 96.1% |
| 50 | 60 | 50 | 85.1% | 97.8% |
| 70 | 30 | 45 | 83.8% | 95.1% |
| 70 | 60 | 43 | 84.1% | 93.9% |
Figure 3Processed image for microaneurysms detection.
Black boxes (Not MA), white Boxes (MA).
Figure 4Retinal image with drusen.