| Literature DB >> 30166272 |
Jianyong Wang1, Rong Ju2, Yuanyuan Chen1, Lei Zhang1, Junjie Hu1, Yu Wu1, Wentao Dong3, Jie Zhong4, Zhang Yi5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is the leading cause of childhood blindness worldwide. Automated ROP detection system is urgent and it appears to be a safe, reliable, and cost-effective complement to human experts.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30166272 PMCID: PMC6156692 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.08.033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1The image labeling process.
Fig. 2The workflow of ROP detection by using two DNNs. Case X was first identified by Id-Net and subsequently graded by Gr-Net if it was a ROP case.
Fig. 3The architecture of the DNNs used in the algorithm. The feature-binding block was implemented by an element-wise max operation. The architectures of the Conv Factory, Inception A, and Inception B modules are identical to the corresponding modules in the Inception–BN17 network.
Fig. 4The workflow of developed DeepROP system in the clinical test. The cloud-based platform consists of the proposed DNN models and the DeepROP website as the user interface.
Summaries of datasets used in this study.
| #patients | Identification task | Grading task | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| normal | ROP | Minor ROP | Severe ROP | ||||||
| #cases | #images | #cases | #images | #cases | #images | #cases | #images | ||
| Developing data | 605 | 1484 | 7559 | 742 | 5967 | 260 | 1834 | 260 | 2305 |
| Data for expert comparison | 264 | 501 | 2068 | 51 | 293 | 31 | 173 | 20 | 120 |
| Data from web | 404 | 838 | 4251 | 106 | 657 | 91 | 565 | 15 | 92 |
Fig. 5The distributions of birth weight and gestation ages of the infants. “UK” denotes the set of infants whose birth weights or gestation ages were not provided. A, each bar represents the number of sets of infants whose birth weights were in the given range. B, each bar represents the number of sets of infants whose gestation ages were within the given weeks.
Summaries of different datasets for ROP detection.
| Patients | Cases | Images | Labels | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada[3] | 35 | 347 | 1459 | normal/plus |
| London[3] | – | – | 106 | normal/plus |
| Dataset[8] | – | – | 77 | Normal/plus/preplus |
| Ours | 1273 | 3722 | 20,795 | normal/minor/severe |
Fig. 6Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of DNN models for identification task (Left) and grading task (Right).
Confusion table of Id-Net for identification task.
| Predicted label | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | ROP | ||
| True label | Normal | 148 | 1 |
| ROP | 5 | 144 | |
Confusion table of Gr-Net for grading task.
| Predicted label | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Minor ROP | Severe ROP | ||
| True label | Minor ROP | 48 | 4 |
| Severe ROP | 6 | 46 | |
Inter-rater KAPPA values.
| DNN Models | Expert1 | Expert2 | Expert3 | Label | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNN Models | 1 | 0.34 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.68 |
| Expert 1 | 0.34 | 1 | 0.32 | 0.42 | 0.53 |
| Expert 2 | 0.70 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.69 | 0.80 |
| Expert 3 | 0.70 | 0.42 | 0.69 | 1 | 0.89 |
| Label | 0.68 | 0.53 | 0.80 | 0.89 | 1 |
The confusion table of the DNNs on the dataset used for the comparison of the model with experts.
| Predicted Label | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Minor | Severe | ||
| True Label | Normal | 487 | 11 | 3 |
| Minor | 6 | 16 | 9 | |
| Severe | 2 | 1 | 17 | |
The confusion table of the expert 1 on the dataset used for the comparison of the model with experts.
| Predicted label | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Minor | Severe | ||
| True Label | Normal | 499 | 0 | 2 |
| Minor | 15 | 16 | 0 | |
| Severe | 5 | 15 | 0 | |
The confusion table of the expert 2 on the dataset used for the comparison of the model with experts.
| Predicted label | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Minor | Severe | ||
| True Label | Normal | 492 | 9 | 0 |
| Minor | 1 | 20 | 10 | |
| Severe | 0 | 0 | 20 | |
The confusion table of the expert 3 on the dataset used for the comparison of the model with experts.
| Predicted label | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Minor | Severe | ||
| True label | Normal | 489 | 12 | 0 |
| Minor | 0 | 31 | 0 | |
| Severe | 0 | 0 | 20 | |
Fig. 7The error rates of the experts and the developed DNN model.
Summaries of the performance of DNNs used in DeepROP website in clinical test.
| Id-Net | Gr-Net | |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 84.91%(95%CI, 76.65%–91.12%) | 93.33%(95%CI, 68.05%–99.83%) |
| Specificity | 96.90%(95%CI, 95.49%–97.96%) | 73.63%(95%CI, 68.05%–99.83%) |
| Accuracy | 95.55%(95%CI, 94.03%–96.77%) | 76.42% (95%CI, 67.18%–84.12%) |