| Literature DB >> 27698369 |
Xiayu Xu1,2, Wenxiang Ding1,2, Xuemin Wang1,2, Ruofan Cao1,2, Maiye Zhang3, Peilin Lv1,2, Feng Xu1,2.
Abstract
Retinal vasculature analysis is important for the early diagnostics of various eye and systemic diseases, making it a potentially useful biomarker, especially for resource-limited regions and countries. Here we developed a smartphone-based retinal image analysis system for point-of-care diagnostics that is able to load a fundus image, segment retinal vessels, analyze individual vessel width, and store or uplink results. The proposed system was not only evaluated on widely used public databases and compared with the state-of-the-art methods, but also validated on clinical images directly acquired with a smartphone. An Android app is also developed to facilitate on-site application of the proposed methods. Both visual assessment and quantitative assessment showed that the proposed methods achieved comparable results to the state-of-the-art methods that require high-standard workstations. The proposed system holds great potential for the early diagnostics of various diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy, for resource-limited regions and countries.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27698369 PMCID: PMC5048171 DOI: 10.1038/srep34603
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flowchart of the proposed POC diagnostic system for resource-limited settings.
A fundus image is acquired and stored in a smartphone app at resource-limited settings. Then blood vessels are detected and measured inside the app. At last, the results are displayed and saved.
Figure 2Illustration of the image analysis results.
(a–c) Original fundus image, vessel segmentation result, and vessel width measurement. (d–g) Inset view of original fundus, vessel segmentation, vessel skeleton, and vessel width measurement.
Comparative performance of different segmentation methods on the DRIVE and STARE databases.
| Data | DRIVE Test | STARE | Platform | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methods | Acc | SP | SN | AUC | Time | Acc | SP | SN | AUC | Time | |
| Human | 0.947 | 0.972 | 0.776 | — | — | 0.935 | 0.938 | 0.895 | — | — | — |
| Niemeijer | 0.942 | 0.969 | 0.689 | 0.930 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Hoover | — | — | — | — | — | 0.9275 | 0.81 | 0.65 | — | 5min | SunSPARCstation 20 |
| Jiang | 0.891 | 0.90 | 0.830 | 0.932 | 8–36s | 0.901 | 0.90 | 0.857 | 0.929 | 8–36s | 600 MHz PC |
| Staal | 0.944 | 0.977 | 0.719 | 0.952 | 15min | 0.952 | 0.981 | 0.697 | 0.961 | 15min | 1.0 GHz, 1GB RAM |
| Mendonca | 0.945 | 0.976 | 0.734 | — | 2.5min | 0.944 | 0.973 | 0.699 | — | 3min | |
| Soares | 0.946 | 0.978 | 0.733 | 0.961 | ~3min | 0.948 | 0.975 | 0.72 | 0.967 | ~3min | 2.17GHz, 1GB RAM |
| Ricci | 0.959 | 0.972 | 0.775 | 0.963 | — | 0.965 | 0.939 | 0.903 | 0.968 | — | — |
| Al—Diri | — | 0.955 | 0.728 | — | 11min | — | 0.968 | 0.752 | — | — | 1.2 GHz |
| Marin | 0.945 | 0.98 | 0.706 | 0.958 | ~90s | 0.952 | 0.982 | 0.694 | 0.977 | ~90s | 2.13GHz, 2GB RAM |
| Fraz | 0.948 | 0.981 | 0.74 | 0.974 | ~100s | 0.953 | 0.976 | 0.755 | 0.976 | ~100s | 2.27GHz, 4GB RAM |
| Lam | 0.947 | — | — | 0.961 | 13min | 0.957 | — | — | 0.974 | 13min | 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM |
| Budai | 0.957 | 0.987 | 0.644 | — | ~5s | 0.938 | 0.982 | 0.58 | — | ~6s | 2.3 GHz, 4GB RAM |
| Perez | 0.925 | 0.967 | 0.644 | — | ~2min | 0.926 | 0.944 | 0.769 | — | ~2min | Parallel Cluster |
| Miri | 0.943 | 0.976 | 0.715 | — | ~50s | — | — | — | — | — | 3 GHz, 1 GB RAM |
| Roychowdhury | 0.949 | 0.978 | 0.739 | 0.967 | 2.45s | 0.956 | 0.984 | 0.732 | 0.967 | 3.95s | 2.6 GHz, 2GB RAM |
Figure 3ROC curve for vessel segmentation on the DRIVE and STARE databases.
The AUC is 0.9585 for DRIVE and 0.9590 for STARE.
Comparison of vessel width measurement methods on HRIS dataset.
| Method Name | Success Rate % | Measurement | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| μ | σ | μ | σ | ||
| Observer 1 | 100 | 4.12 | 1.25 | −0.23 | 0.29 |
| Observer 2 | 100 | 4.35 | 1.35 | 0.002 | 0.26 |
| Observer 3 | 100 | 4.58 | 1.26 | 0.23 | 0.29 |
| Gregson’s Algorithm | 100 | 7.64 | — | 3.29 | 2.84 |
| Half-height full-width (HHFW) | 88.3 | 4.97 | — | 0.62 | 0.93 |
| 1D Gaussian Model-fitting | 99.6 | 3.81 | — | −0.54 | 4.14 |
| 2D Gaussian Model-fitting | 98.9 | 4.18 | — | −0.17 | 6.02 |
| Extraction of Segment Profiles | 99.7 | 4.63 | — | 0.28 | 0.42 |
| 3D Graph-Based Method | 100 | 4.56 | 1.30 | 0.21 | 0.57 |
| 2D Graph-Based Method | 94.0 | 4.16 | 1.20 | −0.18 | 0.70 |
Comparison of vessel width measurement methods on CLRIS dataset.
| Method Name | Success Rate % | Measurement | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| μ | σ | μ | σ | ||
| Observer 1 | 100 | 13.19 | 4.01 | −0.61 | 0.57 |
| Observer 2 | 100 | 13.69 | 4.22 | −0.11 | 0.70 |
| Observer 3 | 100 | 14.52 | 4.26 | 0.72 | 0.57 |
| Gregson’s Algorithm | 100 | 12.8 | — | −1.0 | 2.84 |
| Half-height full-width (HHFW) | 0 | — | — | — | — |
| 1D Gaussian Model-fitting | 98.6 | 6.3 | — | −7.5 | 4.14 |
| 2D Gaussian Model-fitting | 26.7 | 7.0 | — | −6.8 | 6.02 |
| Extraction of Segment Profiles | 93.0 | 15.7 | — | −1.9 | 1.50 |
| 3D Graph-Based Method | 94.1 | 14.05 | 4.47 | 0.08 | 1.78 |
| 2D Graph-Based Method | 93.4 | 13.84 | 4.82 | 0.04 | 1.89 |
Figure 4Test on clinical images.
(a) Visualization of vessel width measurement on high quality image (left) and low quality image (right) of subject one. (b) Visualization of vessel width measurement on high quality image (left) and low quality image (right) of subject two. (c) The scatter plot of vessel widths by the smartphone with respect to vessel widths by the DF-camera. The Pearson’s correlation is 0.922.
Figure 5Illustration of the POC diagnostic system and its app.
(a) Image acquisition. (b) Screenshots of the retinal vessel analysis app.