| Literature DB >> 34899363 |
Fabao Xu1, Cheng Wan2, Lanqin Zhao1, Qijing You2, Yifan Xiang1, Lijun Zhou1, Zhongwen Li1, Songjian Gong3, Yi Zhu4, Chuan Chen5, Cong Li1, Li Zhang1,6, Chong Guo1, Longhui Li1, Yajun Gong1, Xiayin Zhang1, Kunbei Lai1, Chuangxin Huang1, Hongkun Zhao1, Daniel Ting1,7, Chenjin Jin1, Haotian Lin1,8.
Abstract
Purpose: To predict central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) recurrence 3 and 6 months after laser treatment by using machine learning.Entities:
Keywords: central serous chorioretinopathy; imaging features; machine learning; optical coherence tomography; recurrence
Year: 2021 PMID: 34899363 PMCID: PMC8656454 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.649316
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
FIGURE 1Measurement features extracted from the imaging results. All imaging features used to predict recurrence. Please see Table 1 for detailed descriptions of all measurement features. (A–C) Early, middle and late phase FFA of the left eye of a 52-year-old patient with CSC. (D–F) Contemporaneous ICGA of the same patient. (G) The en face projection slab area of the 3*3 pattern on OCTA. (H) The observation of a superficial choroidal layer on OCTA confirmed the presence of BVN. (I) High- and low-reflection areas in the superficial choroidal layer were surrounded with red and yellow circles, respectively. (J) Horizontal B-scan OCT of a patient with CSC; manual measurements were labeled as follows: yellow line, RNEL; green line, SRF; and red line, ChT; (K) yellow arrow, DLS; white arrow, Bruch membrane; (L) white arrow, PED. VA, visual acuity; FFA, fundus fluorescein angiography; ICGA, indocyanine green angiography; OCT, optical coherence tomography; OCTA, optical coherence tomography angiography; SRF, subretinal fluid; RNEL, retinal neuroepithelial layer; ChT, choroidal thickness; PED, retinal pigment epithelial detachment; DLS, double-layer sign; BVN, branching vascular network.
Patient demographics.
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Patients (females) | 401 (63) | 60 (11) | 308 (46) | 30 (5) | 244 (37) | 19 (2) |
| Eyes/Recurrences | 416/0 | 64/0 | 322/20 | 33/3 | 258/29 | 20/3 |
| Age (Years) | 43.19 ± 6.44 | 43.86 ± 7.06 | 42.87 ± 6.44 | 43.21 ± 7.51 | 42.96 ± 6.48 | 41.70 ± 6.73 |
| VA (Baseline) | 0.28 ± 0.21 | 0.29 ± 0.16 | 0.28 ± 0.21 | 0.27 ± 0.16 | 0.28 ± 0.22 | 0.28 ± 0.17 |
| VA (Endpoint) | 0.13 ± 0.16 | 0.11 ± 0.14 | 0.07 ± 0.17 | 0.07 ± 0.14 | 0.03 ± 0.17 | 0.04 ± 0.18 |
VA, visual acuity, values are presented as the means ± standard deviations at baseline of different groups [in logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units]. ZOC, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center; XEC, Xiamen Eye Center.
Accuracy of the Recurrence Predictions in the internal test dataset and the external test dataset.
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision tree | 0.876 ± 0.017 | 0.916 ± 0.019 | 0.860 ± 0.040 | 0.810 ± 0.045 | 0.837 ± 0.037 |
| AdaBoost | 0.935 ± 0.013 | 0.895 ± 0.019 | 0.860 ± 0.019 | 0.845 ± 0.017 | 0.888 ± 0.023 |
| Gradient boosting | 0.802 ± 0.073 | 0.938 ± 0.016 | 0.907 ± 0.015 | 0.903 ± 0.012 | 0.895 ± 0.019 |
| XGBoost | 0.910 ± 0.016 | 0.916 ± 0.006 | 0.888 ± 0.022 | 0.899 ± 0.022 | 0.900 ± 0.035 |
| Random forest | 0.929 ± 0.017 | 0.938 ± 0.009 | 0.903 ± 0.017 | 0.888 ± 0.014 | 0.899 ± 0.014 |
| Extra-trees | 0.935 ± 0.010 | 0.935 ± 0.010 | 0.891 ± 0.009 | 0.867 ± 0.062 | 0.907 ± 0.015 |
| Ensemble algorithm | 0.929 ± 0.017 | 0.941 ± 0.011 | 0.903 ± 0.012 | 0.899 ± 0.014 | 0.903 ± 0.012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ensemble algorithm | 0.939 | 0.970 | 0.950 | 0.950 | 1.000 |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Decision tree | 0.889 ± 0.009 | 0.898 ± 0.016 | 0.822 ± 0.045 | 0.833 ± 0.046 | 0.861 ± 0.048 |
| AdaBoost | 0.913 ± 0.013 | 0.923 ± 0.006 | 0.818 ± 0.019 | 0.833 ± 0.027 | 0.880 ± 0.030 |
| Gradient boosting | 0.789 ± 0.081 | 0.845 ± 0.028 | 0.872 ± 0.024 | 0.884 ± 0.020 | 0.892 ± 0.039 |
| XGBoost | 0.913 ± 0.020 | 0.913 ± 0.009 | 0.899 ± 0.026 | 0.903 ± 0.027 | 0.896 ± 0.039 |
| Random forest | 0.929 ± 0.071 | 0.926 ± 0.016 | 0.899 ± 0.025 | 0.896 ± 0.022 | 0.888 ± 0.018 |
| Extra-trees | 0.926 ± 0.016 | 0.929 ± 0.019 | 0.899 ± 0.028 | 0.896 ± 0.031 | 0.899 ± 0.014 |
| Ensemble algorithm | 0.922 ± 0.021 | 0.926 ± 0.016 | 0.903 ± 0.024 | 0.899 ± 0.022 | 0.903 ± 0.017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ensemble algorithm | 0.970 | 0.939 | 0.950 | 0.950 | 1.000 |
ACC, accuracy of the recurrence prediction at 3 and 6 months after laser treatment compared with the ground truth. The results were stratified according to the follow-up period and the points input into the algorithms. The best learner in all cases was the ensemble algorithm.
FIGURE 2Performance of the algorithms in the internal test dataset and the External Test Dataset of the Full Model. Our algorithms presented a stable and high level of accuracy in all prediction tasks. (A–E) ROC analysis of the performance of the algorithms in the internal test dataset. The AUCs ranged from 0.871 to 1.000 for predictions obtained at 3 and 6 months, respectively. (F–J) CM of the classification provided by the algorithms in the internal test dataset. (K–O) ROC analysis of the performance of the algorithms in the external test dataset. The AUCs ranged from 0.744 to 1.000 for predictions at 3 and 6 months, respectively. (P–T) CM of the classification provided by the algorithms in the external test dataset. ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve; AUC, area under the curve; CM, confusion matrix.
FIGURE 3Performance of the algorithms in the internal test dataset and the External Test Dataset of the Simplified Prediction Model. The simplified prediction model shows a comparable level of predictive power. (A–E) ROC analysis of the performance of the algorithms in the primary validation dataset. The AUCs ranged from 0.887 to 0.986 for predictions at 3 and 6 months, respectively. (F–J) CM of the classification performed by the algorithms in the primary validation dataset. (K–O) ROC analysis of the performance of the algorithms in the external testing dataset. The AUCs ranged from 0.767 to 1.000 for predictions at 3 and 6 months, respectively. (P–T) CM of the classification performed by the algorithms in the external testing dataset. ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve; AUC, area under the curve; CM, confusion matrix.