| Literature DB >> 32235780 |
Israel Cruz-Vega1, Daniel Hernandez-Contreras2, Hayde Peregrina-Barreto3, Jose de Jesus Rangel-Magdaleno2, Juan Manuel Ramirez-Cortes2.
Abstract
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is one of the most prevalent diseases in the world. It is also associated with a high mortality index. Diabetic foot is one of its main complications, and it comprises the development of plantar ulcers that could result in an amputation. Several works report that thermography is useful to detect changes in the plantar temperature, which could give rise to a higher risk of ulceration. However, the plantar temperature distribution does not follow a particular pattern in diabetic patients, thereby making it difficult to measure the changes. Thus, there is an interest in improving the success of the analysis and classification methods that help to detect abnormal changes in the plantar temperature. All this leads to the use of computer-aided systems, such as those involved in artificial intelligence (AI), which operate with highly complex data structures. This paper compares machine learning-based techniques with Deep Learning (DL) structures. We tested common structures in the mode of transfer learning, including AlexNet and GoogleNet. Moreover, we designed a new DL-structure, which is trained from scratch and is able to reach higher values in terms of accuracy and other quality measures. The main goal of this work is to analyze the use of AI and DL for the classification of diabetic foot thermograms, highlighting their advantages and limitations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first proposal of DL networks applied to the classification of diabetic foot thermograms. The experiments are conducted over thermograms of DM and control groups. After that, a multi-level classification is performed based on a previously reported thermal change index. The high accuracy obtained shows the usefulness of AI and DL as auxiliary tools to aid during the medical diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: artificial neural networks; deep learning; diabetes mellitus; diabetic foot; support vector machine; thermography
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32235780 PMCID: PMC7147707 DOI: 10.3390/s20061762
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Images of the five level grades of the thermograms.
Figure 2Automatic segmentation process [26].
Figure 3Angiosomes suggested by Taylor and Palmer [55] for temperature analysis.
Description of the DFTNet Architecture.
| Layer No. | Layer Type | Filter Size | Stride | No. of Filters | FC Units |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layer 1 | Conv. | 7 × 7 | 1 ×1 | 32 | - |
| Layer 2 | Max-Pool | 3×3 | 2×2 | - | - |
| Layer 3 | Conv. | 1×1 | 1×1 | 64 | - |
| Layer 4 | Conv. | 3×3 | 1×1 | 64 | |
| Layer 5 | Max-Pool | 3×3 | 2×2 | - | - |
| Layer 6 | Conv. | 3×3 | 1×1 | 32 | |
| Layer 7 | Max-Pool | 2×2 | 2×2 | - | - |
| Layer 8 | Conv. | 3×3 | 1×1 | 32 | - |
| Layer 9 | Full Conn. | - | - | - | No. Classes |
Figure 4Images of the automatic segmentation process of one case of the DM group, including the RGB original image, the grayscale representation, and the obtained images from one to four thresholds [26].
Figure 5Fuzzy sets of the segmentation process in a DM foot with the optimal value of two thresholds [26].
Figure 6Fuzzy sets of the segmentation process in a CG foot with the optimal value of three thresholds [26].
The performance measures of SVM (left) and ANN (right) in classification of the five classes.
| Case | 1st Class | 2nd Class | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | Accuracy | F-measure | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 5 | 1.0000–0.9167 | 1.0000–0.9167 | 1.0000–0.9167 | 1.0000–0.9167 | 1.0000–0.9167 | 1.0000–0.9167 |
| 2 | 2 | 5 | 1.0000–0.9167 | 1.0000–0.8333 | 1.0000–0.8462 | 1.0000–0.8750 | 1.0000–0.8800 | 1.0000–0.8750 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 0.9167–0.6667 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 0.9583–0.8333 | 0.9565–0.8000 | 0.9167–0.8333 |
| 4 | 3 | 5 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 0.9167–0.5833 | 0.9231–0.7059 | 0.9583–0.7917 | 0.9600–0.8276 | 0.9826–0.7917 |
| 5 | 2 | 4 | 0.9167–0.6667 | 0.5000–0.9167 | 0.6471–0.8889 | 0.7083–0.7917 | 0.7586–0.7619 | 0.9167–0.7917 |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 1.0000–0.5000 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 1.0000–0.7500 | 1.0000–0.6667 | 1.0000–0.7500 |
| 7 | 4 | 5 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 0.9167–0.4167 | 0.9231–0.6316 | 0.9583–0.7083 | 0.9600–0.7742 | 1.0000–0.7083 |
| 8 | 3 | 4 | 0.2500–0.6667 | 0.5833–1.0000 | 0.3750–1.0000 | 0.4167–0.8333 | 0.3000–0.8000 | 0.3194–0.8333 |
| 9 | 2 | 3 | 1.0000–0.8333 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 1.0000–0.9167 | 1.0000–0.9091 | 1.0000–0.9167 |
| 10 | 1 | 2 | 0.8333–0.5000 | 0.5833–1.0000 | 0.6667–1.0000 | 0.7083–0.7500 | 0.7407–0.6667 | 0.7639–0.7500 |
|
| 0.8917–0.7667 | 0.8500–0.8667 | 0.8535–0.8989 | 0.8708–0.8167 | 0.8676–0.8003 | 0.8899–0.8167 |
The performance measures of AlexNet (left) and GoogleNet (right) in classification of the five classes.
| Case | 1st Class | 2nd Class | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | Accuracy | F-measure | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 5 | 0.9545–0.9091 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 1.0000–1.0000 | 0.9783–0.9565 | 0.9767–0.9524 | 0.9773–0.9545 |
| 2 | 2 | 5 | 1.0000–0.9583 | 0.9583–0.9583 | 0.9600–0.9583 | 0.9792–0.9583 | 0.9796–0.9583 | 0.9792–0.9583 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 0.7727–0.7727 | 1.0000–0.9583 | 1.0000–0.9444 | 0.8913–0.8696 | 0.8718–0.8500 | 0.8864–0.8655 |
| 4 | 3 | 5 | 0.9583–0.9167 | 0.7917–0.7917 | 0.8214–0.8148 | 0.8750–0.8542 | 0.8846–0.8627 | 0.8750–0.8542 |
| 5 | 2 | 4 | 0.9167–0.7917 | 0.8333–0.9167 | 0.8462–0.9048 | 0.8750–0.8542 | 0.8800–0.8444 | 0.8750–0.8542 |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 0.9545–0.9091 | 0.5417–1.0000 | 0.6563–1.0000 | 0.7391–0.9565 | 0.7778–0.9524 | 0.7481–0.9545 |
| 7 | 4 | 5 | 0.7500–0.8333 | 0.8750–0.7500 | 0.8571–0.7692 | 0.8125–0.7917 | 0.8000–0.8000 | 0.8125–0.7917 |
| 8 | 3 | 4 | 0.5000–0.5833 | 0.5417–0.6250 | 0.5217–0.6087 | 0.5208–0.6042 | 0.5106–0.5957 | 0.5208–0.6042 |
| 9 | 2 | 3 | 0.8333–0.4583 | 0.6250–0.9583 | 0.6897–0.9167 | 0.7292–0.7083 | 0.7547–0.6111 | 0.7292–0.7083 |
| 10 | 1 | 2 | 0.8182–0.3182 | 0.6250–0.9167 | 0.6667–0.7778 | 0.7174–0.6304 | 0.7347–0.4516 | 0.7216–0.6174 |
|
| 0.8458–0.7451 | 0.7792–0.8875 | 0.8019–0.8695 | 0.8118–0.8184 | 0.8171–0.7879 | 0.8125–0.8163 |
The performance measures of our proposed DFTNet structure classifying the five classes.
| Case | Class 1 | Class 2 | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | Accuracy | F-measure | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0.9583 | 0.9565 | 0.9783 | 0.9778 | 0.9792 |
| 4 | 3 | 5 | 0.8333 | 0.9583 | 0.9524 | 0.8958 | 0.8889 | 0.8958 |
| 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 0.9545 | 0.9583 | 0.9545 | 0.9565 | 0.9545 | 0.9564 |
| 7 | 4 | 5 | 0.9583 | 0.9583 | 0.9583 | 0.9583 | 0.9583 | 0.9583 |
| 8 | 3 | 4 | 0.9167 | 0.75 | 0.7857 | 0.8333 | 0.8462 | 0.8533 |
| 9 | 2 | 3 | 0.9167 | 0.875 | 0.88 | 0.8958 | 0.898 | 0.8958 |
| 10 | 1 | 2 | 0.9545 | 0.9167 | 0.913 | 0.9348 | 0.9333 | 0.9356 |
|
| 0.9534 | 0.9375 | 0.9401 | 0.9453 | 0.9457 | 0.9455 |
Figure 7ROC curves of the worst 5-level classification case (Classes 3 and 4).