| Literature DB >> 29065611 |
Abstract
Retinal blood vessels have a significant role in the diagnosis and treatment of various retinal diseases such as diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, arteriosclerosis, and hypertension. For this reason, retinal vasculature extraction is important in order to help specialists for the diagnosis and treatment of systematic diseases. In this paper, a novel approach is developed to extract retinal blood vessel network. Our method comprises four stages: (1) preprocessing stage in order to prepare dataset for segmentation; (2) an enhancement procedure including Gabor, Frangi, and Gauss filters obtained separately before a top-hat transform; (3) a hard and soft clustering stage which includes K-means and Fuzzy C-means (FCM) in order to get binary vessel map; and (4) a postprocessing step which removes falsely segmented isolated regions. The method is tested on color retinal images obtained from STARE and DRIVE databases which are available online. As a result, Gabor filter followed by K-means clustering method achieves 95.94% and 95.71% of accuracy for STARE and DRIVE databases, respectively, which are acceptable for diagnosis systems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29065611 PMCID: PMC5559979 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4897258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1An example of color retinal fundus image (a) and manually segmented binary vessel map (b).
Figure 2The block diagram of the method.
Figure 3An example of retinal region selection operation.
Figure 4An example to vessel light reflex removal.
Figure 5Different orientations of Gabor and Gauss kernels used in vessel enhancement.
Figure 6Example results of different filters (Gabor, Gaussian, and Frangi) and binary result.
The effect of different cluster numbers to the performance results using hard and soft clustering after Gabor filter.
| TPR | SPE | ACC | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Gabor + FCM with 2 clusters | 51.59 | 99.34 | 95.74 |
| Gabor + FCM with 3 clusters | 75.38 | 96.83 | 95.18 |
| Gabor + FCM with 4 clusters | 87.06 | 89.79 | 89.53 |
| Gabor + K-means with 2 clusters | 50.37 | 99.39 | 95.70 |
| Gabor + K-means with 3 clusters |
|
|
|
| Gabor + K-means with 4 clusters | 84.30 | 92.05 | 91.44 |
|
| |||
| Gabor + FCM with 2 clusters | 54.60 | 99.01 | 93.34 |
| Gabor + FCM with 3 clusters | 67.76 | 98.59 | 95.87 |
| Gabor + FCM with 4 clusters | 54.50 | 99.02 | 93.34 |
| Gabor + K-means with 2 clusters | 54.51 | 99.01 | 93.33 |
| Gabor + K-means with 3 clusters |
|
|
|
| Gabor + K-means with 4 clusters | 54.44 | 99.02 | 93.33 |
The obtained average results from STARE and DRIVE databases in whole image (cluster size is 3).
| TPR | SPE | ACC | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Gabor filter + FCM | 75.38 | 96.83 | 95.18 |
| Gauss filter + FCM | 59.20 | 97.07 | 94.16 |
| Frangi filter + FCM | 57.62 | 98.79 | 95.71 |
| Gabor filter + K-means | 68.69 | 98.16 |
|
| Gauss filter + K-means | 70.24 | 97.09 | 95.16 |
| Frangi filter + K-means | 58.98 | 98.63 | 95.67 |
|
| |||
| Gabor filter + FCM | 67.76 | 98.59 |
|
| Gauss filter + FCM | 74.29 | 97.02 | 95.00 |
| Frangi filter + FCM | 69.27 | 98.39 | 95.82 |
| Gabor filter + K-means | 61.02 | 99.05 |
|
| Gauss filter + K-means | 61.79 | 98.75 | 95.50 |
| Frangi filter + K-means | 68.83 | 98.43 | 95.83 |
The obtained average results from STARE and DRIVE databases in ROI compared with some other methods (NA indicates “not available”).
| TPR | SPE | ACC | In ROI/whole image | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Proposed method |
|
|
| In ROI |
| Proposed method | 68.69 | 98.16 |
| In whole image |
| Hoover [ | 67.51 | 95.67 | 92.67 | In whole image |
| Jiang and Mojon [ | — | — | 93.37 | NA |
| Staal et al. [ | — | — | 95.16 | In ROI |
| Nguyen et al. [ | — | — | 93.24 | NA |
| Budai et al. [ | 58.00 | 98.20 | 93.86 | NA |
| Oliveira et al. [ | 80.49 | 95.92 | 94.46 | NA |
| Bao et al. [ | 78.12 | 96.12 | 96.24 | NA |
| Mapayi et al. [ | 76.26 | 96.57 | 95.10 | NA |
| Roychowdhury et al. [ | 77.20 | 97.30 | 95.10 | NA |
| Rani et al. [ | 74.19 | 97.47 | 95.01 | NA |
|
| ||||
| Proposed method (Gabor + K-means) |
|
|
| In ROI |
| Proposed method (Gabor + K-means) | 61.02 | 99.05 |
| In whole image |
| Chaudhuri et al. [ | — | — | 87.73 | In whole image |
| Xu and Luo [ | 77.60 | — | 93.28 | In ROI |
| Staal et al. [ | — | — | 94.42 | In ROI |
| Nguyen et al. [ | — | — | 94.07 | NA |
| Budai et al. [ | 64.40 | 98.70 | 95.72 | NA |
| Oliveira et al. [ | 91.06 | 94.31 | 94.02 | NA |
| Mapayi et al. [ | 73.13 | 97.24 | 95.11 | NA |
| Roychowdhury et al. [ | 72.50 | 98.30 | 95.20 | NA |
| Rani et al. [ | 72.60 | 96.86 | 93.70 | NA |
| Shah et al. [ | 72.05 | 98.14 | 94.79 | NA |
A comparison of running times with existing studies on STARE and DRIVE databases.
| Average running times | System | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| STARE | DRIVE | ||
| Proposed method | 9.1 s | 8.6 s | 3.3 GHz CPU, 4 GB RAM |
| Hoover [ | 5 min | — | Sun SPARC station |
| Jiang and Mojon [ | 8–36 s | 8–36 s | 600 MHz PC |
| Staal et al. [ | 15 min | 15 min | 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM |
| Nguyen et al. [ | 2.5 s | 2.5 s | 2.4 GHz CPU, 2 GB RAM |
| Budai et al. [ | 1.31 s | 1.04 s | 2.3 GHz CPU, 4 GB RAM |
| Roychowdhury et al. [ | 6.7 s | 3.11 s | 2.6 GHz CPU, 2 GB RAM |
| Rani et al. [ | 3.26 s | 2.58 s | 3.4 GHz CPU, 4 GB RAM |
∗The results are reported from cited articles.