| Literature DB >> 34901091 |
Ye-Ye Zhang1,2, Hui Zhao3, Jin-Yan Lin4, Shi-Nan Wu5, Xi-Wang Liu4,6, Hong-Dan Zhang4,6, Yi Shao5, Wei-Feng Yang2,4,6.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, deep learning has been widely used in a variety of ophthalmic diseases. As a common ophthalmic disease, meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) has a unique phenotype in in-vivo laser confocal microscope imaging (VLCMI). The purpose of our study was to investigate a deep learning algorithm to differentiate and classify obstructive MGD (OMGD), atrophic MGD (AMGD) and normal groups.Entities:
Keywords: DenseNet CNN; convolution neural network; deep learning; in-vivo confocal microscopy; meibomian gland dysfunction
Year: 2021 PMID: 34901091 PMCID: PMC8655877 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.774344
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1In-vivo laser confocal microscope images of obstructive (A) and atrophic MGD (B) and healthy eyes (C). MGD, meibomian gland dysfunction.
Figure 2Flow chart illustrating development of the deep learning system.
Figure 3The imaging images go through the deep learning algorithm and the output of the final results.
Performance of three deep learning algorithms in the test dataset.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| Obstructive MGD | 88.8% (86.1–91.4%) | 95.4% (94.2–96.6%) | 97.3% (96.4–98.2%) |
| Atrophic MGD | 89.4% (86.8–91.9%) | 98.4% (97.6–99.1%) | 98.6% (97.9–99.3%) |
| Healthy controls | 94.5% (92.6–96.4%) | 92.6% (91.0–94.1%) | 98.0% (97.4–98.6%) |
|
| |||
| Obstructive MGD | 85.8% (82.9–88.8%) | 87.1% (85.1–89.1%) | 93.8% (92.7–95.0%) |
| Atrophic MGD | 69.0% (65.2–72.8%) | 99.5% (99.0–99.9%) | 95.6% (94.3–96.9%) |
| Healthy controls | 88.8% (86.1–91.4%) | 85.2% (83.1–87.3%) | 92.7% (91.2–94.1%) |
|
| |||
| Obstructive MGD | 89.3% (86.7–91.9%) | 85.4% (83.3–87.5%) | 94.2% (93.0–95.4%) |
| Atrophic MGD | 70.6% (66.9–74.4%) | 99.1% (98.5–99.7%) | 96.7% (95.6–97.8%) |
| Healthy controls | 86.4% (83.6–89.3%) | 88.6% (86.8–90.5%) | 94.1% (92.9–95.3%) |
DenseNet 169 demonstrated the highest accuracy.
MGD, meibomian gland dysfunction; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 4The output of the discriminant result and the final classification accuracy vary with the number of iterations. MGA, atrophic meibomian gland; MGO, obstructive meibomian gland; AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve.
Figure 5Pooling process of deep learning algorithms.
Figure 6Performance of three DenseNet deep learning algorithms in the test dataset. (A) Confusion matrices describing the accuracies of deep learning algorithms. (B) Receiver operating characteristic curves indicating the performance of each algorithm in diagnosis of obstructive MGD, atrophic MGD and healthy controls. DenseNet 169 model demonstrated the highest differential diagnostic accuracy. Class 0: obstructive MGD; class 1: atrophic MGD; class 2: healthy controls. MGD, meibomian gland dysfunction.