| Literature DB >> 25945362 |
K Somasundaram1, P Alli Rajendran2.
Abstract
Retinal fundus images are widely used in diagnosing different types of eye diseases. The existing methods such as Feature Based Macular Edema Detection (FMED) and Optimally Adjusted Morphological Operator (OAMO) effectively detected the presence of exudation in fundus images and identified the true positive ratio of exudates detection, respectively. These mechanically detected exudates did not include more detailed feature selection technique to the system for detection of diabetic retinopathy. To categorize the exudates, Diabetic Fundus Image Recuperation (DFIR) method based on sliding window approach is developed in this work to select the features of optic cup in digital retinal fundus images. The DFIR feature selection uses collection of sliding windows with varying range to obtain the features based on the histogram value using Group Sparsity Nonoverlapping Function. Using support vector model in the second phase, the DFIR method based on Spiral Basis Function effectively ranks the diabetic retinopathy disease level. The ranking of disease level on each candidate set provides a much promising result for developing practically automated and assisted diabetic retinopathy diagnosis system. Experimental work on digital fundus images using the DFIR method performs research on the factors such as sensitivity, ranking efficiency, and feature selection time.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25945362 PMCID: PMC4405225 DOI: 10.1155/2015/534045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Sliding window on DFIR method.
Figure 2Distance computation on affected diseased optic cup.
Figure 3Architecture diagram of DFIR method.
Tabulation for sensitivity.
| Number of images | Sensitivity (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DFIR method | FMED method | OAMO method | |
| 5 | 78 | 75 | 70 |
| 10 | 81 | 78 | 73 |
| 15 | 85 | 82 | 75 |
| 20 | 82 | 79 | 74 |
| 25 | 84 | 81 | 76 |
| 30 | 90 | 87 | 82 |
| 35 | 88 | 85 | 80 |
| 40 | 87 | 83 | 78 |
Figure 4Measure of sensitivity.
Tabulation for specificity.
| Number of images | Specificity (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DFIR method | FMED method | OAMO method | |
| 5 | 82 | 79 | 75 |
| 10 | 85 | 81 | 78 |
| 15 | 90 | 86 | 80 |
| 20 | 86 | 84 | 79 |
| 25 | 88 | 85 | 81 |
| 30 | 94 | 91 | 87 |
| 35 | 92 | 89 | 85 |
| 40 | 92 | 87 | 83 |
Figure 5Measure of specificity.
Tabulation for ranking efficiency.
| Number of sliding windows ( | Ranking efficiency (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DFIR | FMED | OAMO | |
| 1 | 65 | 58 | 56 |
| 2 | 72 | 63 | 60 |
| 3 | 75 | 65 | 63 |
| 4 | 78 | 68 | 66 |
| 5 | 81 | 71 | 69 |
| 6 | 83 | 74 | 72 |
| 7 | 85 | 77 | 75 |
| 8 | 88 | 80 | 78 |
Figure 6Measure of ranking efficiency.
Tabulation for feature selection time.
| Number of sliding windows ( | Feature selection time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DFIR | FMED | OAMO | |
| 5 | 0.045 | 0.053 | 0.057 |
| 10 | 0.042 | 0.051 | 0.054 |
| 15 | 0.038 | 0.049 | 0.051 |
| 20 | 0.036 | 0.047 | 0.049 |
| 25 | 0.032 | 0.043 | 0.046 |
| 30 | 0.030 | 0.042 | 0.044 |
| 35 | 0.029 | 0.044 | 0.040 |
| 40 | 0.025 | 0.038 | 0.038 |
Figure 7Measure of feature selection time.