| Literature DB >> 31001406 |
Yuan Gao1, Xiaosheng Yu2, Chengdong Wu2, Wei Zhou1, Xiaoliang Lei1, Yaoming Zhuang1.
Abstract
Accurate optic disc (OD) detection is an essential yet vital step for retinal disease diagnosis. In the paper, an approach for segmenting OD boundary without manpower named full-automatic double boundary extraction is designed. There are two main advantages in it. (1) Since the performances and the computational cost produced by iterations of contour evolution of active contour models- (ACM-) based approaches greatly depend on the initialization, this paper proposes an effective and adaptive initial level set contour extraction approach using saliency detection and threshold techniques. (2) In order to handle unreliable information generated by intensity in abnormal retinal images caused by diseases, a modified LIF approach is presented by incorporating the shape prior information into LIF. We test the effectiveness of the proposed approach on a publicly available DIARETDB0 database. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms well-known approaches in terms of the average overlapping ratio and accuracy rate.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31001406 PMCID: PMC6437741 DOI: 10.1155/2019/2745183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Major structures of the optic disc. Red line: the optic disc boundary.
Figure 2Contour initialization. (a) Cropped ROI around optic disc; (b) saliency detection result; (c) smoothed image of (b); (d) the largest connected object; (e) optic disc initial contour in green.
Figure 3The result of OD boundary extraction obtained by LIF model and LIFO model, respectively; the ground truth is marked with a green line.
Figure 4The comparisons for different segmentation models with different initial contours and Hough transform method. They, respectively, show the comparison results based on adaptive initial contour and manual initial circular contour drawing outside of the OD, inside of the OD, and intersect of the OD. The ground truth is marked with a green line. (a) Initial level set contour. (b) Presented LIFO. (c) LIF [28]. (d) Hough transform [31].
Performance measurement based on overlapping areas between different initial contours on the DIARETDB0 database and the DRISHTI-GS database.
| Initial contour | Accuracy rate (DIARETDB0) (%) | Accuracy rate (DRISHTI-GS) (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Contour intersecting the OD | 94.50 | 94.10 |
| Contour within the OD | 94.80 | 94.50 |
| Contour outside the OD | 95.10 | 95.30 |
| Adaptive contour | 96.30 | 96.10 |
Figure 5OD segmentation results: (a) original image with the ground truth; (b) adaptive initialized contour; (c) Hough transform results [31]; (d) MRS results [35]; (e) GVF model results [36]; (f) CV model results [37]; (g) LIF model results [28]; (h) LSACM model results [38]; (i) proposed LIFO model results. Green color indicates boundary marked by the expert and red color indicates achieved boundary by a method.
Performance measurement based on overlapping areas between the proposed approach and other segmentation approaches on the DIARETDB0 database and DRISHTI-GS database.
| Average overlapping ratio (DIARETDB0) (%) | Accuracy rate (DIARETDB0) (%) | Average overlapping ratio (DRISHTI-GS) (%) | Accuracy rate (DRISHTI-GS) (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hough [ | 61.42 | 89.60 | 60.55 | 88.10 |
| MRS [ | 61.96 | 90.80 | 60.81 | 88.60 |
| GVF [ | 63.66 | 92.80 | 61.86 | 91.30 |
| CV [ | 55.15 | 86.10 | 55.15 | 85.30 |
| LIF [ | 63.89 | 93.10 | 63.02 | 91.70 |
| LSACM [ | 64.24 | 93.90 | 63.91 | 93.50 |
| Ours (LIFO) | 66.59 | 96.30 | 65.61 | 96.10 |
| Normal | 67.33 | 98.40 | 66.25 | 98.90 |
| Abnormal | 65.53 | 95.90 | 64.87 | 94.90 |
Performance measurement based on F-score between the proposed approach and other segmentation approaches on the DIARETDB0 database and DRISHTI-GS database.
| Methods |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Hough [ | 0.853 | 0.841 |
| MRS [ | 0.865 | 0.859 |
| GVF [ | 0.885 | 0.882 |
| CV [ | 0.792 | 0.786 |
| LIF [ | 0.915 | 0.908 |
| LSACM [ | 0.937 | 0.919 |
| Ours(LIFO) | 0.951 | 0.946 |
| Best | 0.986 | 0.990 |
| Worst | 0.658 | 0.646 |