| Literature DB >> 31874641 |
Beiji Zou1,2, Changlong Chen1,2, Rongchang Zhao3,4, Pingbo Ouyang1,5, Chengzhang Zhu1,2, Qilin Chen1,2, Xuanchu Duan5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is an irreversible eye disease caused by the optic nerve injury. Therefore, it usually changes the structure of the optic nerve head (ONH). Clinically, ONH assessment based on fundus image is one of the most useful way for glaucoma detection. However, the effective representation for ONH assessment is a challenging task because its structural changes result in the complex and mixed visual patterns.Entities:
Keywords: Computer-aided diagnosis; Glaucoma detection; Radon transform
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31874641 PMCID: PMC6929399 DOI: 10.1186/s12859-019-3267-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Fig. 1The flowchart of the proposed method
Fig. 2a The main measurements on ONH, b Radon transform at 90°
Fig. 3Comparison between common histogram equalization and CLAHE: a Color fundus image; b Gray-scale image; c Common histogram equalization from (b); d Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization from (b)
Fig. 4Visualization display in Radon domain and reconstructed image. a Normal, b Preprocessing on (a), c RT of (b), d Reconstructed image of (c), e Glaucoma, f Preprocessing on (e), g RT of (f), h Reconstructed image of (g)
Fig. 5The results of RT at specific angles, in which the differences are concentrated on the middle and jump. a Normal, b RT of (a), c Specific angle transform of (a): left is 40°, right is 140°, d Glaucoma, e RT of (d), f Specific angle transform of (d): left is 40°, right is 140°
Fig. 6The diagram of feature representation
Results of the proposed method with 10-fold validation in glaucoma detection
| Database | Classifier | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|
| RIMONE-r2 | SVM | 86.154 | 0.906 |
| RIMONE-r2 | RF | 77.100 | 0.769 |
| Drishti-GS | SVM | 74.000 | 0.732 |
| Drishti-GS | RF | 78.000 | 0.733 |
Comparison with other glaucoma detection algorithms
| Method | Database | Images | Accuracy (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bock et al. [ | Private | 575 | 80.000 | 0.880 |
| RIMONE-r2 | 455 | 81.319 | 0.890 | |
| Cheng et al. [ | private | 650 | – | 0.830 |
| Maheshwari et al. [ | RIMONE-r2 | 455 | 81.320 | – |
| ours | RIMONE-r2 | 455 | 86.154 | 0.906 |
Fig. 7The distribution of frequency in RIMONE-r2
Results of different angles and dimensions on RIMONE-r2
| Angles | Dimension | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | 600 | 81.198 |
| 800 | 81.978 | |
| 1000 | 83.736 | |
| 9 odd | 600 | 81.758 |
| 800 | 81.539 | |
| 1000 | 79.780 | |
| 9 even | 600 | 84.396 |
| 800 | 84.176 | |
| 1000 | 84.176 | |
| 18 | 600 | 82.396 |
| 800 | 79.341 | |
| 1000 | 83.077 | |
| 9 even | 690 | 86.154 |
Results with and without DWT on RIMONE-r2
| Method | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|
| RT | 84.396 |
| RT + DWT | 86.154 |
Results of different biorthogonal wavelets on RIMONE-r2
| Wavelets | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|
| bior1.1 | 85.934 |
| bior1.3 | 85.934 |
| bior1.5 | 86.154 |
| bior2.2 | 76.703 |
| bior2.4 | 76.484 |
| bior2.6 | 76.703 |
| bior3.3 | 76.923 |
| bior3.5 | 76.703 |
| bior3.7 | 76.923 |
Results with different dimension reduction methods on RIMONE-r2
| Method | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|
| PCA | 86.154 |
| MDS | 80.879 |
| LE | 70.989 |
Results of different kernel functions in RIMONE-r2
| Kernel | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|
| Linear | 79.780 |
| Polynomial 3 | 81.319 |
| RBF | 86.154 |