| Literature DB >> 32870389 |
Debasis Maji1, Arif Ahmed Sekh2.
Abstract
Automatic grading of retinal blood vessels from fundus image can be a useful tool for diagnosis, planning and treatment of eye. Automatic diagnosis of retinal images for early detection of glaucoma, stroke, and blindness is emerging in intelligent health care system. The method primarily depends on various abnormal signs, such as area of hard exudates, area of blood vessels, bifurcation points, texture, and entropies. The development of an automated screening system based on vessel width, tortuosity, and vessel branching are also used for grading. However, the automated method that directly can come to a decision by taking the fundus images got less attention. Detecting eye problems based on the tortuosity of the vessel from fundus images is a complicated task for opthalmologists. So automated grading algorithm using deep learning can be most valuable for grading retinal health. The aim of this work is to develop an automatic computer aided diagnosis system to solve the problem. This work approaches to achieve an automatic grading method that is opted using Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model. In this work we have studied the state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms and proposed an attention network which can grade retinal images. The proposed method is validated on a public dataset EIARG1, which is only publicly available dataset for such task as per our knowledge.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy (DR); Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP); Tortuosity-based grading
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32870389 PMCID: PMC7462841 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-020-01635-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Syst ISSN: 0148-5598 Impact factor: 4.460
Fig. 1Example of a low tortusity fundus image b high tortusity image
Popular fundus image datasets and applications
| Sample Image | Dataset | Description |
|---|---|---|
| HRF [ | Task: Vessel segmentation | |
| Modality: Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images: 15 | ||
| GT: Vessel, OD | ||
| DRIVE[ | Task:vessel segmentation | |
| Modality:Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images :40 | ||
| GT: Vessel | ||
| STARE [ | Task:vessel segmentation | |
| Modality:Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images : 400 (overall), 40 (vessels) | ||
| GT: Vessel, OD, EXUDATES, | ||
| MICROANEURYSMS | ||
| CHASE-DB1 [ | Task:vessel segmentation | |
| Modality:Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images :image L[14],image R[14] | ||
| GT: Vessel | ||
| DIARETDB1 [ | Task: EXUDATES, MICROANEURYSMS, | |
| HEMORRHAGE | ||
| Modality: Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images :89 | ||
| GT: OD, EXUDATES, | ||
| MICROANEURYSMS | ||
| MESSIDOR [ | Task: DR grading | |
| Modality: Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images: 1200 | ||
| GT: EXUDATES, | ||
| MICROANEURYSMS, OD | ||
| RIM-ONE [ | Task: detect the optic cup and optic disc | |
| Modality:Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images :169 | ||
| GT: optic disc, OD | ||
| INSPIRE-AVR [ | Task: Classify and grade different complications of HR | |
| Modality: Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images: 40 | ||
| GT: Vessel, tortusity grading | ||
| EIARAG1 [ | Task: Classify and grade different vessel tortusity | |
| Modality: Color Fundus | ||
| Total Images :120 | ||
| GT: Vessel tortusity grading |
Different applications, datasets, and the limitations of fundus image analysis methods reported in the literature
| Reference | Application | Dataset | Method | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Vessel tortuosity Measurement | 120-Full image from ROP | Curvature-Based Algorithm | Small database used for validation |
| [ | Vessel tortuosity Measurement | 60 retinal images | Monte carlo simulation | Required higher computational |
| 30 Arteries30 Veins | Rigid Transformations | cost in the process | ||
| [ | Segmentation of the retinal blood vessel | |||
| Glaucoma classification | DRIVE dataset | SVM classifier | Demands manual segmented label for the training | |
| [ | Assessment of vessel tortuosity | 20 retinal image | Tukey’s method | Required manual preprocessing before using it |
| [ | Glaucoma classification | Non-public dataset | K-nearestneighbours and SVM | Demands large volume training data |
| [ | Retinal vessels’ diameter measurement | Non public | Dempster-Shafer Fusion | Limited due to learning limitaions |
Different applications, datasets, and performance of fundus image analysis methods reported in the literature
| Dataset | Applications | Methods | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROP [ | Tortusity measures | Curvature-based | 0.71 (SCC) |
| DRIVE, STARE, | BV segmentation | Deformable U-Net | Accuracy of 0.9566, 0.9641, 0.9610, 0.9651. |
| CHASE DB1, | AUC of 0.9802, 0.9832, | ||
| and HRF | 0.9804,and 0.9831 on DRIVE, | ||
| STARE, CHASE DB1 and HRF respectively | |||
| DRIVE, STARE, | Exudates | Mutual information: | Avg. accuracy of 0.9771 |
| DIARETDB1, | Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) filter, | and AUC of 0.9554 on | |
| and MESSIDOR | matched filter (MF), | DRIVE, STARE, | |
| differential evolution (DE) algorithm | DIARETDB1, and MESSIDOR | ||
| RIM-ONE | Cup to Disc measurement for | Haralic features were applied | Accuracy of 0.8643 |
| Diagnosing Glaucomausing | and post-process using | ||
| Classification Paradigm | a neural network | ||
| MESSIDOR | Macular edema in | Local binary patterns (LBPs), | Sensitivity of 0.925, |
| Multispectral images (MSI) | generalized low-rank approximation | specificity of 0.983, | |
| of matrices (GLRAM), supervised | and accuracy of 0.981 | ||
| regularization term (SRT), | |||
| Gaussian kernel-based SVM | |||
| DRIVE, INSPIRE-AVR | Graph-based classification | Classification of arteries and veins | 0.874; 0.883 (ACC) |
Fig. 2Overview of the proposed attention-based learning framework for grading fundus images. It consists of a pretrained model (Inception V3) and an attention network to classify the images in 3 grade, where higher grade represents higher risk of eye problems
Fig. 3Example of attention on a–b low tortusity fundus image c–d high tortusity image
Fig. 4Visualizations of the augmented images used for training
Performance of the learning methods for grading fundus images
| Method | F1 Score |
|---|---|
| KNN [ | 0.59 |
| Random forest [ | 0.63 |
| SVM [ | 0.61 |
| CNN [ | 0.84 |
| Encoder-Decoder [ | 0.79 |
| ResNet-50 [ | 0.82 |
| VGG16 [ | 0.71 |
| Attention+ResNet-50 [ | 0.81 |
| Attention+VGG16 [ | 0.67 |
| Attention+Inception V3 | 0.92 |
Overall comparison with state-of-the-art non neural network based methods. The accuracy measure is retinopathy online challenge score (SCC)
| Reference | Method | Database | #of images | Performance (SCC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grisan et al. [ | Inflection-based | RET-TORT | 60 | 0.949 (artery), |
| measurement | 0.853 (vein) | |||
| Lagali et al. [ | Combination | Non-public | 20 | 0.95 |
| of measures | dataset | |||
| Oloumi et al. [ | Angle-variation-based | Non-public | 7 | NA |
| measurement | dataset | |||
| Aslam et al. [ | Curvature and vessel | DRIVE | 20 | NA |
| width-based measurement | ||||
| Aghamohamadian et al. [ | Curvature-based | RET-TORT | 60 | 0.94 |
| measurement | ||||
| Aghamohamadian et al. [ | Curvature-based | RET-TORT | 120 | 0.71 |
| measurement | ||||
| Proposed Method | Attention network | RET-TORT | 120 | 0.98 |
Fig. 5Training and validation loss during training using ResNet50 [49],VGG16 [50], and proposed attention and Inception [60]
Fig. 6Confusion matrix of three grades in the test cases using the proposed method
Fig. 8Some random example of failure cases a–b and successfully obtained grade c–d using proposed method
Fig. 7ROC curve for healthy V/s Sick
Correlation with the experts with the method [4] and the proposed method
| Experts | VGG16 | Proposed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exp. 1 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.41 | 0.52 | 0.70 |
| Exp. 2 | 0.48 | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.62 | 0.85 |
| Exp. 3 | 0.7 | 0.61 | 0.48 | 0.72 | 0.98 |
| Overall average vote | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.47 | 0.72 | 0.98 |
Fig. 9Execution time for 100 images. CB1 and CB2 are the curvature based methods reported in [59] and in [4]