| Literature DB >> 33810578 |
Hanan A Hosni Mahmoud1, Hanan Abdullah Mengash2.
Abstract
This paper presents a technique for the detection of keratoconus via the construction of a 3D eye images from 2D frontal and lateral eye images. Keratoconus is a disease that affects the cornea. Normal case eyes have a round-shaped cornea, while patients who suffer from keratoconus have a cone-shaped cornea. Early diagnosis can decrease the risk of eyesight loss. Our aim is to create a method of fully automated keratoconus detection using digital-camera frontal and lateral eye images. The presented technique accurately determines case severity. Geometric features are extracted from 2D images to estimate depth information used to build 3D images of the cornea. The proposed methodology is easy to implement and time-efficient. 2D images of the eyes (frontal and lateral) are used as input, and 3D images from which the curvature of the cornea can be detected are produced as output. Our method involves two main steps: feature extraction and depth calculation. Machine learning from the 3D images dataset Dataverse, specifically taken by the Cornea/Anterior Segment OCT SS-1000 (CASIA), was performed. Results show that the method diagnosed the four stages of keratoconus (severe, moderate, mild, and normal) with an accuracy of 97.8%, as compared to manual diagnosis done by medical experts.Entities:
Keywords: 3D eye construction; cornea; depth calculation; keratoconus detection; machine learning
Year: 2021 PMID: 33810578 PMCID: PMC8036293 DOI: 10.3390/s21072326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Automated keratoconus detection methods.
| Reference | Achievement | Method | Dataset | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Corneal haze and demarcation line measurement. | Image analysis and machine learning | 140 Keratoconus eyes for actual patients | The mean demarcation line is 295.9 ± 59.8 microns, and it is 314.5 ± 48.4 microns by medical personal. |
| [ | Keratoconus | Digital image analysis processing | 140 cases captured by smartphone | Accuracy of 96.03% |
| [ | Keratoconus supervised learning and detection | Support vector machine using image processing techniques | 240 cases were attained from Al-Amal Eye Clinic in Baghdad utilizing a Pentacam | Accuracy of 90% |
| [ | Diagnostic method for keratoconus detection | Usage of a smartphone | 175 images of keratoconus cases | Accuracies of 93%, 67% in severe, and moderate cases, respectively. |
| The proposed method | Automated keratoconus | Depth calculation from 3D corneal image and machine learning | 268 Corneal images of Keratoconus and normal cases | Accuracy is 97.8% |
3D Image construction.
| Reference | Achievement | Method | Dataset | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Reconstruction of 3D edge from 2D image | Correlation based algorithm | Images are a real object taken by a camera | Attains 100% accuracy |
| [ | 3-D particle reconstruction | Utilizing multi-view 2-D motion and shape shading | 3D camera images of moving wear particles | The performance undergoes degradation if occlusion occurs between particles |
| [ | 3D image-building from 2D X-Ray images | Conversion machine learning | Thirty samples of patient data (femur bones) have been acquired | Moderate accuracy with less processing time |
| [ | Depth finding in real time | Statistical-based learning techniques | 512 images of vertices | Accuracy increases by the number of images in the training set |
| [ | 3D Corneal image reconstruction | Fusion of confocal microscopy images | Images covering the whole corneal thickness in normal subjects with the Confoscan4 confocal microscope | Failed in 3% of images |
Figure 1Normal eye.
Figure 2Keratoconus eye.
Figure 3Block diagram of the proposed method.
Figure 4The stages of the feature extraction method.
Figure 5(a) Example of the output of the scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) algorithm. (b) Dense features extraction.
Figure 6Lateral view of the cornea.
Figure 7Architecture of the proposed convolutional neural network (CNN).
Summary of the proposed convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture.
| Layer | Number of Kernels | Kernel Size | Output Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Convolutional layer | 96 | 3 × 3 × 3 | 96 × 114 × 114 × 114 |
| Pooling layer | 2 × 2 × 2 | 96 × 113 × 113 × 113 | |
| Convolutional layer | 128 | 3 × 3 × 3 | 128 × 111 × 111 × 111 |
| Pooling layer | 2 × 2 × 2 | 128 × 56 × 56 × 56 | |
| Convolutional layer | 256 | 3 × 3 × 3 | 256 × 50 × 50 × 50 |
| Pooling layer | 2 × 2 × 2 | 256 × 25 × 25 × 25 | |
| Convolutional layer | 512 | 3 × 3 × 3 | 512 × 12 × 12 × 12 |
| Pooling layer | 2 × 2 × 2 | 512 × 6 × 6 × 6 | |
| FC | 1000 × 1 × 1 × 1 | ||
| FC | 1000 × 1 × 1 × 1 |
Figure 8The implementation of the convolutional neural network (CNN).
Figure 9Corneal curvature slopes and angles computation.
Figure 10The correlation between the actual angle of curvature of keratoconus in patients, and the angle of curvature of keratoconus extracted from 3D corneal images of the patients.
Figure 11Bland-Altman plot.
Cross-validation for keratoconus detection.
| K-Fold Testing | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K = 8 | 93.30% | 92.71% | 93.17% | 92.83% |
| K = 10 | 97.8% | 96.41% | 97.23% | 97.01% |
| K = 12 | 92.45% | 91.80% | 91.90% | 90.86% |
| K = 14 | 88.98% | 88.66% | 88.72% | 88.55% |
Keratoconus detection confusion matrix.
| Predicted Cases | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mild | Moderate | Severe | Normal | Total | TP | FN | TN | FP | ||
|
| Mild | 48 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 58 | 48 | 10 | ||
| Moderate | 2 | 66 | 2 | 0 | 70 | 70 | 0 | |||
| Severe | 0 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 | 40 | 0 | |||
| Normal | 2 | 2 | 0 | 96 | 100 | 96 | 4 | 96 | 4 | |
Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the proposed system.
| Metric | Computation |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | 97.80% |
| Sensitivity | 98.45% |
| Specificity | 96.00% |
Comparison of results of the convolutional neural network (CNN) for Keratoconus classification and our proposed CNN, using k-Fold Cross-Validation, k = 10: training set (80%), testing set (20%).
| Method | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 93.68% | 94.60% | 91.43% |
| [ | 96.03% | 95.18% | 94.44% |
| [ | 90.68% | 92.10% | 93.52% |
| [ | 93.68% | 94.60% | 91.43% |
| The proposed methodology | 97.80% | 98.45% | 96.00% |