| Literature DB >> 27652092 |
Anum A Salam1, Tehmina Khalil2, M Usman Akram1, Amina Jameel2, Imran Basit3.
Abstract
Glaucoma is a chronic disease often called "silent thief of sight" as it has no symptoms and if not detected at an early stage it may cause permanent blindness. Glaucoma progression precedes some structural changes in the retina which aid ophthalmologists to detect glaucoma at an early stage and stop its progression. Fundoscopy is among one of the biomedical imaging techniques to analyze the internal structure of retina. Our proposed technique provides a novel algorithm to detect glaucoma from digital fundus image using a hybrid feature set. This paper proposes a novel combination of structural (cup to disc ratio) and non-structural (texture and intensity) features to improve the accuracy of automated diagnosis of glaucoma. The proposed method introduces a suspect class in automated diagnosis in case of any conflict in decision from structural and non-structural features. The evaluation of proposed algorithm is performed using a local database containing fundus images from 100 patients. This system is designed to refer glaucoma cases from rural areas to specialists and the motivation behind introducing suspect class is to ensure high sensitivity of proposed system. The average sensitivity and specificity of proposed system are 100 and 87 % respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Computer aided diagnostics; Cup to disc ratio; Fundoscopy; Glaucoma detection; Machine learning
Year: 2016 PMID: 27652092 PMCID: PMC5017972 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3175-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1a Normal eye; b eye with moderate glaucoma; c eye with severe glaucoma
Fig. 2Proposed methodology
Fig. 3Optic disc localization and ROI extraction
Fig. 4a Contrast enhanced RGB color space image; b extracted green plane; c negative transform; d vessel removal using opening; e negative transform; f region growing; g Edge extraction of convex hull from f; h detected cup after Ellipse fitting
Fig. 5a Contrast enhanced image in HSV plane; b extracted value plane; c binary image; d results after morphological operations to remove noise; e convex hull; f edge extraction; g ellipse fitting and detected disc; h detected cup and disc
Fig. 6Textural and intensity based features used for glaucoma classification
Results from CDR values
| Glaucoma | Healthy | |
|---|---|---|
| Glaucoma | 24 | 2 |
| Healthy | 1 | 73 |
Fig. 7Error and mean error in CDR values compared to CCDR values
Results from CDR values
| Image | CCDR | CDR | Image | CCDR | CDR | Image | CCDR | CDR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| f1 | 0.3 | 0.32 | f34 | 0.3 | 0.40 | f67 | 0.6 | 0.52 |
| f2 | 0.4 | 0.42 | f35 | 0.4 | 0.43 | f68 | 0.4 | 0.35 |
| f3 | 0.6 | 0.62 | f36 | 0.4 | 0.42 | f69 | 0.7 | 0.64 |
| f4 | 1 | 1 | f37 | 0.4 | 0.48 | f70 | 0.4 | 0.39 |
| f5 | 0.4 | 0.36 | f38 | 0.5 | 0.52 | f71 | 0.5 | 0.49 |
| f6 | 0.4 | 0.43 | f39 | 0.4 | 0.38 | f72 | 0.4 | 0.35 |
| f7 | 0.7 | 0.69 | f40 | 0.6 | 0.55 | f73 | 0.4 | 0.39 |
| f8 | 0.6 | 0.67 | f41 | 0.5 | 0.45 | f74 | 0.5 | 0.47 |
| f9 | 0.3 | 0.39 | f42 | 0.6 | 0.45 | f75 | 0.5 | 0.49 |
| f10 | 0.4 | 0.38 | f43 | 0.5 | 0.47 | f76 | 0.4 | 0.47 |
| f11 | 0.6 | 0.53 | f44 | 0.5 | 0.40 | f77 | 0.7 | 0.67 |
| f12 | 0.5 | 0.49 | f45 | 0.6 | 0.54 | f78 | 0.8 | 0.66 |
| f13 | 0.3 | 0.30 | f46 | 0.4 | 0.42 | f79 | 0.4 | 0.38 |
| f14 | 1 | 1 | f47 | 0.6 | 0.61 | f80 | 0.5 | 0.46 |
| f15 | 0.3 | 0.32 | f48 | 0.6 | 0.62 | f81 | 0.4 | 0.39 |
| f16 | 0.5 | 0.44 | f49 | 0.4 | 0.42 | f82 | 0.4 | 0.41 |
| f17 | 0.5 | 0.38 | f50 | 0.4 | 0.34 | f83 | 0.5 | 0.38 |
| f18 | 0.3 | 0.31 | f51 | 0.5 | 0.42 | f84 | 0.5 | 0.38 |
| f19 | 0.4 | 0.27 | f52 | 0.3 | 0.35 | f85 | 0.5 | 0.40 |
| f20 | 0.3 | 0.32 | f53 | 0.6 | 0.61 | f86 | 0.5 | 0.50 |
| f21 | 0.5 | 0.39 | f54 | 0.3 | 0.35 | f87 | 0.4 | 0.42 |
| f22 | 0.4 | 0.40 | f55 | 0.4 | 0.44 | f88 | 0.5 | 0.36 |
| f23 | 0.4 | 0.46 | f56 | 0.5 | 0.42 | f89 | 0.5 | 0.37 |
| f24 | 0.2 | 0.35 | f57 | 0.4 | 0.33 | f90 | 0.6 | 0.39 |
| f25 | 0.6 | 0.59 | f58 | 0.4 | 0.41 | f91 | 0.4 | 0.37 |
| f26 | 0.6 | 0.78 | f59 | 0.9 | 0.59 | f92 | 0.4 | 0.40 |
| f27 | 0.6 | 0.56 | f60 | 0.6 | 0.65 | f93 | 0.6 | 0.55 |
| f28 | 0.3 | 0.29 | f61 | 0.5 | 0.49 | f94 | 1 | 0.88 |
| f29 | 0.5 | 0.49 | f62 | 0.5 | 0.38 | f95 | 0.4 | 0.37 |
| f30 | 0.4 | 0.39 | f63 | 0.5 | 0.40 | f96 | 0.3 | 0.41 |
| f31 | 0.4 | 0.34 | f64 | 0.4 | 0.41 | f97 | 0.4 | 0.32 |
| f32 | 0.4 | 0.46 | f65 | 0.4 | 0.45 | f98 | 0.4 | 0.36 |
| f33 | 0.6 | 0.60 | f66 | 0.4 | 0.43 | f99 | 0.6 | 0.60 |
Comparison Of Isolated Features And hybrid feature classification
| Features | Without PCA | With PCA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Specificity | Acc. % | PCA | Sensitivity | Specificity | Acc. % | |
| Wavelets | 0.9 | 0.75 | 86 | 142 | 0.9 | 0.78 | 87 |
| LBP and color moments | 0.87 | 0.9 | 88 | 15 | 0.88 | 0.9 | 89 |
| Wavelets, color moments, Correlograms and Haralick | 0.84 | 0.64 | 79 | 84 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 84 |
| Wavelets and multi-wavelets | 0.86 | 0.75 | 83 | 304 | 0.93 | 0.78 | 89 |
| Multi-wavelets | 0.8 | 0.64 | 76 | 18 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 85 |
| Wavelets, color moments, Correlograms | 0.84 | 0.57 | 77 | 3 | 0.87 | 0.68 | 82 |
| Wavelets and color moments | 0.88 | 0.75 | 84 | 77 | 0.9 | 0.78 | 87 |
| Wavelets, color moments, Haralick feat. | 0.84 | 0.75 | 82 | 192 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 86 |
| Wavelets and Haralick feat. | 0.82 | 0.75 | 78 | 185 | 0.83 | 0.86 | 84 |
| LBP | 0.86 | 0.64 | 80 | 9 | 0.84 | 0.7 | 81 |
| LBP and multi-wavelets | 0.86 | 0.75 | 83 | 18 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 85 |
| LBP, wavelets, multi-wavelets | 0.86 | 0.67 | 81 | 309 | 0.9 | 0.78 | 89 |
| Haralick feat. | 0.75 | 0.78 | 76 | 52 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 82 |
| Color moments and correlograms | 0.8 | 0.35 | 69 | 11 | 0.8 | 0.57 | 74 |
| LBP, wavelets, color moments multi-wavelets | 0.86 | 0.75 | 83 | 308 | 0.9 | 0.78 | 87 |
Results of machine learning module
| Glaucoma | Healthy | |
|---|---|---|
| Glaucoma | 24 | 2 |
| Healthy | 7 | 67 |
Correlating results from CDR and machine learning
| Glaucoma | Healthy | Suspect | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glaucoma | 22 | 0 | 4 |
| Healthy | 1 | 65 | 8 |
Comparison of results with already deployed technique
| Technique | Specificity | Sensitivity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| CDR based detection | 0.91 | 0.93 | 92 |
| Feature based detection | 0.91 | 0.86 | 90 |
| Combined results | 0.88 | 1 | 92 |
|
| |||
| CDR based detection | 0.98 | 0.92 | 97 |
| Feature based detection | 0.90 | 0.88 | 89 |
| Combined results | 0.87 | 1 | 91 |
|
| |||
| Glaucoma detection using CDR and ISNT rule (Khan et al. | 0.85 | 0.73 | 82 |