| Literature DB >> 32240395 |
Menglin Guo1, Mei Zhao2, Allen M Y Cheong2, Houjiao Dai1, Andrew K C Lam3, Yongjin Zhou4.
Abstract
An accurate segmentation and quantification of the superficial foveal avascular zone (sFAZ) is important to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of many retinal diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy and retinal vein occlusion. We proposed a method based on deep learning for the automatic segmentation and quantification of the sFAZ in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images with robustness to brightness and contrast (B/C) variations. A dataset of 405 OCTA images from 45 participants was acquired with Zeiss Cirrus HD-OCT 5000 and the ground truth (GT) was manually segmented subsequently. A deep learning network with an encoder-decoder architecture was created to classify each pixel into an sFAZ or non-sFAZ class. Subsequently, we applied largest-connected-region extraction and hole-filling to fine-tune the automatic segmentation results. A maximum mean dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.976 ± 0.011 was obtained when the automatic segmentation results were compared against the GT. The correlation coefficient between the area calculated from the automatic segmentation results and that calculated from the GT was 0.997. In all nine parameter groups with various brightness/contrast, all the DSCs of the proposed method were higher than 0.96. The proposed method achieved better performance in the sFAZ segmentation and quantification compared to two previously reported methods. In conclusion, we proposed and successfully verified an automatic sFAZ segmentation and quantification method based on deep learning with robustness to B/C variations. For clinical applications, this is an important progress in creating an automated segmentation and quantification applicable to clinical analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Automatic segmentation and quantification; Deep learning; Foveal avascular zone; Optical coherence tomography angiography
Year: 2019 PMID: 32240395 PMCID: PMC7099561 DOI: 10.1186/s42492-019-0031-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art ISSN: 2524-4442
Fig. 1The proposed method pipeline
Fig. 2An example of OCTA images with nine different brightness/contrast settings. a 130/20; b 90/20; c 110/20; d 150/20; e 170/20; f 130/0; g 130/10; h 130/30; i 130/40
Fig. 3Graphical representation of the proposed deep learning network. The proposed deep learning network included an encoder and decoder. The encoder comprised two Conv-BN- ReLu blocks (C1–C2) and five pooling blocks (P1–P5). The decoder comprised five upsampling blocks (U1–U5) and a reconstruction block (R1). The output of each layer is a three-dimensional feature map of size (h × w × d), where h and w are the height and width of the feature map, respectively, and d is the feature dimension
Fig. 4Mean dice similarity coefficient of the proposed method with binarization of different threshold values. The red line denotes the mean DSCs of all deep learning network outputs after binarization of different threshold values; the dashed green line and the dotted blue line denote one standard deviation below and above the mean DSC, respectively. DSC: Dice similarity coefficient
Fig. 5A typical example of automatic superficial foveal avascular zone segmentation. The dice similarity coefficientwas 0.990. a Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) image; b Automatic segmentation result (blue area) presented on OCTA image; c Ground truth (GT) (red area) presented on OCTA image; d Magnification of the differences between automatic segmentation results (blue area) and GT (red area); the purple area is the overlapping part of the automatic segmentation results and the GT
Segmentation performance with threshold value of 0.44
| Dice similarity coefficient (mean ± SD) | Sensitivity (mean ± SD) | Specificity (mean ± SD) | R | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current study | 0.976 ± 0.011 | 0.972 ± 0.019 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.997 ( |
Segmentation performance of the proposed method in each parameter group
| Parameter group | Dice similarity coefficient (mean ± SD) | Sensitivity (mean ± SD) | Specificity (mean ± SD) | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | 0.977 ± 0.001 | 0.972 ± 0.017 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.998 ( |
| G2 | 0.975 ± 0.011 | 0.967 ± 0.022 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.997 ( |
| G3 | 0.977 ± 0.001 | 0.972 ± 0.017 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.998 ( |
| G4 | 0.976 ± 0.010 | 0.972 ± 0.018 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.998 ( |
| G5 | 0.976 ± 0.010 | 0.972 ± 0.018 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.998 ( |
| G6 | 0.976 ± 0.010 | 0.973 ± 0.018 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.997 ( |
| G7 | 0.977 ± 0.009 | 0.974 ± 0.016 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.998 ( |
| G8 | 0.975 ± 0.011 | 0.971 ± 0.020 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.998 ( |
| G9 | 0.972 ± 0.013 | 0.975 ± 0.018 | 0.999 ± 0.001 | 0.996 ( |
Comparison of the segmentation performance between our proposed method and similar studies
| Study | Dice similarity coefficient | R |
|---|---|---|
| Lu et al .[ | 0.808 | 0.792 ( |
| Díaz et al .[ | 0.879 | 0.666 ( |
| Cheng et al .[ | 0.925 | 0.948 ( |
| Gharaibeh et al .[ | 0.915 | 0.940 ( |
| Current study | 0.976 | 0.997 ( |