| Literature DB >> 32855839 |
David Le1, Minhaj Alam1, Cham K Yao2, Jennifer I Lim3, Yi-Ting Hsieh4, Robison V P Chan3, Devrim Toslak1,5, Xincheng Yao1,3.
Abstract
Purpose: To test the feasibility of using deep learning for optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) detection of diabetic retinopathy.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; deep learning; detection; diabetic retinopathy; screening
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32855839 PMCID: PMC7424949 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.2.35
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.The deep learning CNN used for OCTA DR detection is VGG16, a network that contains 16 trainable layers: convolution (Conv) and fully connected (FC) layers. The corresponding output layer dimensions of each layer is shown below each block. All convolution and fully connected layers are followed by a ReLU activation function. The softmax layer is a fully connected layer that is followed by a softmax activation function. Maxpool and Flatten layers are operational layers with no tunable parameters.
Demographics of OCTA Dataset
| Demographic | Control | No DR | Mild DR | Moderate DR | Severe DR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects ( | 20 | 17 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Sex, male/female ( | 12/8 | 6/11 | 11 | 12 | 11 |
| Age (y), mean ± SD | 42 ± 9.8 | 66.4 ± 10.14 | 50.10 ± 12.61 | 50.80 ± 8.39 | 57.84 ± 10.37 |
| Age range (y) | 25–71 | 49–86 | 24–74 | 32–68 | 41–73 |
| Duration of diabetes (y), mean ± SD | — | — | 19.64 ± 13.27 | 16.13 ± 10.58 | 23.40 ± 11.95 |
| Diabetes type II (%) | — | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Insulin dependent, Y/N ( | — | 14/3 | 7/13 | 12/8 | 15/5 |
| Hba1c (%), mean ± SD | — | 5.9 ± 0.7 | 6.5 ± 0.6 | 7.3 ± 0.9 | 7.8 ± 1.3 |
| Hypertension (%) | 10 | 17 | 45 | 80 | 80 |
Quantification of Individual OCTA Features
| Mean ± SD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature | Control | No DR | Mild DR | Moderate DR | Severe DR |
| SCP | |||||
| BVT | 1.11 ± 0.07 | 1.09 ± 0.01 | 1.14 ± 0.05 | 1.17 ± 0.06 | 1.23 ± 0.04 |
| BVC (µm) | 40.16 ± 0.51 | 41.28 ± 0.63 | 41.17 ± 1.35 | 40.95 ± 0.58 | 41.29 ± 1.09 |
| VPI | 29. 77 ± 1.52 | 31.04 ± 1.58 | 28.30 ± 2.09 | 28.91 ± 2.02 | 27.33 ± 3.30 |
| BVD (%) | |||||
| SCP | |||||
| C1, 2 mm | 56.93 ± 4.07 | 42.33 ± 7.48 | 50.44 ± 8.74 | 52.34 ± 5.71 | 44.40 ± 7.67 |
| C2, 4 mm | 56.49 ± 2.69 | 55.27 ± 4.00 | 54.09 ± 4.90 | 54.93 ± 4.06 | 52.47 ± 4.84 |
| C3, 6 mm | 54.45 ± 2.45 | 55.36 ± 3.14 | 52.77 ± 3.55 | 53.71 ± 3.94 | 52.54 ± 5.04 |
| DCP | |||||
| C1, 2 mm | 75.52 ± 3.70 | 63.03 ± 6.95 | 64.97 ± 8.60 | 67.22 ± 5.52 | 57.36 ± 8.46 |
| C2, 4 mm | 78.37 ± 3.87 | 71.52 ± 5.59 | 70.25 ± 6.45 | 70.17 ± 5.12 | 62.50 ± 7.62 |
| C3, 6 mm | 76.70 ± 4.93 | 71.45 ± 6.02 | 68.08 ± 6.62 | 67.11 ± 5.23 | 60.77 ± 7.72 |
| FAZ-A | |||||
| SCP (mm2) | 0.30 ± 0.06 | 0.37 ± 0.16 | 0.33 ± 0.05 | 0.38 ± 0.07 | 0.46 ± 0.06 |
| DCP (mm2) | 0.39 ± 0.08 | 0.40 ± 0.14 | 0.46 ± 0.07 | 0.53 ± 0.12 | 0.58 ± 0.09 |
| FAZ-CI | |||||
| SCP | 1.14 ± 0.11 | 1.14 ± 0.04 | 1.29 ± 0.14 | 1.38 ± 0.14 | 1.46 ± 0.18 |
| DCP | 1.18 ± 0.12 | 1.09 ± 0.02 | 1.31 ± 0.21 | 1.42 ± 0.19 | 1.49 ± 0.17 |
SCP, superficial capillary plexus; BVT, blood vessel tortuosity; BVC, blood vessel caliber; VPI, vessel perimeter index; BVD, blood vessel density; C1, C2, and C3, three circular zones; DCP, deep capillary plexus; FAZ-A, foveal avascular zone area; FAZ-CI, foveal avascular zone contour irregularity.
Figure 2.A transfer learning performance study was conducted to determine how many layers are necessary for effective transfer learning in OCTA images. Our model consisted of 16 retrainable layers. The additional graph in the right-hand corner shows that retraining nine layers satisfies the criteria of the one positive standard deviation rule.
Cross-Validation Multi-Label Confusion Matrix (n = 131)
| Predicted Label | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| True Label | Control | No DR | DR |
| Control | 25 | 3 | 4 |
| NoDR | 1 | 23 | 0 |
| DR | 9 | 8 | 58 |
Cross-Validation Evaluation Metrics (n = 131)
| Mean ± SD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | Control | No DR | DR | Average |
| ACC (%) | 87.022 ± 0.059 | 90.840 ± 0.020 | 83.970 ± 0.050 | 87.277 ± 0.034 |
| SE (%) | 78.123 ± 0.152 | 95.835 ± 0.089 | 77.334 ± 0.076 | 83.764 ± 0.105 |
| SP (%) | 89.899 ± 0.050 | 89.720 ± 0.022 | 92.858 ± 0.041 | 90.825 ± 0.018 |
Figure 3.ROC curves for the cross-validation performance of the model for individual class performance (control, NoDR, and DR) and the average performance of the model.
External Validation Multi-Label Confusion Matrix (n = 46)
| Predicted Label | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| True Label | Control | No DR | DR |
| Control | |||
| NoDR | 1 | 13 | 6 |
| DR | 1 | 7 | 18 |
Figure 4.GUI platform for DR classification using OCTA.