| Literature DB >> 28139688 |
Liming Wang1, Kai Zhang2, Xiyang Liu2,3, Erping Long4, Jiewei Jiang2, Yingying An2, Jia Zhang2, Zhenzhen Liu4, Zhuoling Lin4, Xiaoyan Li4, Jingjing Chen4, Qianzhong Cao4, Jing Li4, Xiaohang Wu4, Dongni Wang4, Wangting Li4, Haotian Lin4.
Abstract
There are many image classification methods, but it remains unclear which methods are most helpful for analyzing and intelligently identifying ophthalmic images. We select representative slit-lamp images which show the complexity of ocular images as research material to compare image classification algorithms for diagnosing ophthalmic diseases. To facilitate this study, some feature extraction algorithms and classifiers are combined to automatic diagnose pediatric cataract with same dataset and then their performance are compared using multiple criteria. This comparative study reveals the general characteristics of the existing methods for automatic identification of ophthalmic images and provides new insights into the strengths and shortcomings of these methods. The relevant methods (local binary pattern +SVMs, wavelet transformation +SVMs) which achieve an average accuracy of 87% and can be adopted in specific situations to aid doctors in preliminarily disease screening. Furthermore, some methods requiring fewer computational resources and less time could be applied in remote places or mobile devices to assist individuals in understanding the condition of their body. In addition, it would be helpful to accelerate the development of innovative approaches and to apply these methods to assist doctors in diagnosing ophthalmic disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28139688 PMCID: PMC5282520 DOI: 10.1038/srep41545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Original slit lamp image and the chosen area for classification.
The relevant parameters of eight schemas.
| Schema | Feature extraction | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | Color features; gray tone spatial dependence matrices: | ELM (extreme learning machine): The number of neurons in hidden layer is 80 |
| (2) | SVMs (support vector machines): Linear kernel function | |
| (3) | SVMs: Linear kernel function; GA (genetic algorithm): population size is 30; crossover rate is 0.7; mutation rate is 0.3; maximum iteration steps is 200 | |
| (4) | ||
| (5) | Wavelet transformation: Two level wavelet transformation; three kind of wavelets: db1, sym4, haar; all images are resized to be 15 × 30 | SVMs: Linear kernel function; polynomial kernel function |
| (6) | LBP (local binary pattern): | |
| (7) | Sparse representation: Sample size: 15 × 20, 5 × 10; size of over complete dictionary: 70, 75, 78, 80, 81, 85, 90 | DE (differential evolution): Population size is 50; crossover rate is 0.7; mutation rate is 0.4; maximum iteration steps is 500 |
| (8) | Color features; gray tone spatial dependence matrices: |
Performance comparison of schemas (1), (2), (3) and (4) with different k.
| Schema | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | 0.5825 ± 0.0336 | 0.3123 ± 0.0853 | 0.8151 ± 0.0227 | |
| (2) | 0.7844 ± 0.0337 | 0.5610 ± 0.0585 | 0.9769 ± 0.0144 | |
| (3) | 0.8341 ± 0.2788 | 0.7074 ± 0.0822 | 0.9433 ± 0.0325 | |
| (4) | 0.6976 ± 0.0241 | 0.5877 ± 0.0391 | 0.7829 ± 0.0603 | |
| 0.7133 ± 0.0198 | 0.5732 ± 0.0347 | 0.8340 ± 0.0403 | ||
| 0.7100 ± 0.0293 | 0.5315 ± 0.0118 | 0.8550 ± 0.0359 | ||
Figure 2ROC curves for eight schemas.
This figure shows the ROC curves of eight schemas (a) is the ROC curves of schema (1), (2), (3) and (4), where the k of schema (4) is 10; (b) shows the ROC curves of schema (5) and (6). Schema (5) contains the discrete wavelet transformation with three different wavelets which is used as a method to extract image feature. So there are three different curves about schema (5), where two curves are coincident. The kernel function in SVMs (support vector machines) of these two schemas is linear kernel function; (c) shows the ROC curves of schema (5) and (6). Schema (5) contains the discrete wavelet transformation with three different wavelets which is used as a method to extract image feature. So there are three different curves about schema (5), where two curves are coincident. The kernel function in SVMs of these two schemas is polynomial kernel function; (d) displays the ROC curves of schema (7) and (8). The over-complete dictionary of schema (7) is formed with 1 negative sample and 80 positive samples, whereas that of schema (8) is formed with 5 negative samples and 70 positive samples (the sample size in schema (6) is 5 × 10). All sub-images are from the first-fold out of four-fold cross-validation. (ROC: receiver operating characteristics curve; AUC: area under the curve).
Performance comparison of schemas (5) and (6).
| Schema | Feature extraction method | Kernel function | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (5) | haar wavelet | linear | 0.8758 ± 0.0315 | 0.7976 ± 0.0517 | 0.9432 ± 0.0186 |
| polynomial | 0.8814 ± 0.0109 | 0.7853 ± 0.0263 | 0.9642 ± 0.0186 | ||
| db1 wavelet | linear | 0.8758 ± 0.0315 | 0.7976 ± 0.0517 | 0.9432 ± 0.0186 | |
| polynomial | 0.8814 ± 0.0109 | 0.7853 ± 0.0263 | 0.9642 ± 0.0186 | ||
| sym4 wavelet | linear | 0.8679 ± 0.0288 | 0.7902 ± 0.0589 | 0.9348 ± 0.0210 | |
| polynomial | 0.8611 ± 0.0104 | 0.7463 ± 0.0249 | 0.9579 ± 0.0194 | ||
| (6) | LBP | linear | 0.8635 ± 0.0248 | 0.8367 ± 0.0404 | 0.8865 ± 0.0223 |
| polynomial | 0.8827 ± 0.0189 | 0.8463 ± 0.0289 | 0.9118 ± 0.0287 |
Performance of schemas (7) and (8).
| Schema | Sample size | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (7) | 5 × 10 | 0.5282 ± 0.0260 | 0.5552 ± 0.3777 | 0.5063 ± 0.3673 |
| 15 × 20 | 0.4627 ± 0.0014 | 1 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | |
| (8) | — | 0.4790 ± 0.0061 | 0.8900 ± 0.0851 | 0.0996 ± 0.1006 |
Performance of schema (7) using an over-complete dictionary with different sizes and different sample sizes and schema (8) for different over-complete dictionary sizes.
| Schema | Image size | Number of images belonging to each class in the over-complete dictionary | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative samples | Positive samples | |||||
| (7) | 15 × 20 | 20 | 50 | 0.5623 | 0 | 0.9910 |
| 20 | 60 | 0.5757 | 0.0147 | 0.9850 | ||
| 15 | 70 | 0.5808 | 0.0088 | 0.9936 | ||
| 10 | 70 | 0.5845 | 0.0942 | 0.9384 | ||
| 5 | 70 | 0.5931 | 0.1059 | 0.9488 | ||
| 5 × 10 | 10 | 80 | 0.5792 | 0.0303 | 0.9678 | |
| 10 | 75 | 0.5730 | 0.0746 | 0.9313 | ||
| 3 | 75 | 0.5916 | 0.1400 | 0.0888 | ||
| 5 | 75 | 0.5943 | 0.1224 | 0.9299 | ||
| 5 | 70 | 0.5993 | 0.1882 | 0.8960 | ||
| (8) | — | 20 | 50 | 0.5732 | 0.0265 | 0.9721 |
| 10 | 70 | 0.5734 | 0.0265 | 0.9682 | ||
| 10 | 75 | 0.5796 | 0.0091 | 0.9768 | ||
| 5 | 75 | 0.5801 | 0.0515 | 0.9474 | ||
| 1 | 80 | 0.5826 | 0.0636 | 0.9432 | ||
Figure 3Memory usage and Computational time of the 8 schemas.
This figure is the memory space occupied by all schemas and running time of these schemas in identifying ophthalmic disease. (a), occupied memory of all schemas. (b), running time of all schemas. (MB: Megabyte).