| Literature DB >> 34945957 |
Prabal Datta Barua1,2,3, Wai Yee Chan4, Sengul Dogan5, Mehmet Baygin6, Turker Tuncer5, Edward J Ciaccio7, Nazrul Islam8, Kang Hao Cheong9, Zakia Sultana Shahid10, U Rajendra Acharya11,12,13.
Abstract
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) images coupled with many learning techniques have been developed to diagnose retinal disorders. This work aims to develop a novel framework for extracting deep features from 18 pre-trained convolutional neural networks (CNN) and to attain high performance using OCT images. In this work, we have developed a new framework for automated detection of retinal disorders using transfer learning. This model consists of three phases: deep fused and multilevel feature extraction, using 18 pre-trained networks and tent maximal pooling, feature selection with ReliefF, and classification using the optimized classifier. The novelty of this proposed framework is the feature generation using widely used CNNs and to select the most suitable features for classification. The extracted features using our proposed intelligent feature extractor are fed to iterative ReliefF (IRF) to automatically select the best feature vector. The quadratic support vector machine (QSVM) is utilized as a classifier in this work. We have developed our model using two public OCT image datasets, and they are named database 1 (DB1) and database 2 (DB2). The proposed framework can attain 97.40% and 100% classification accuracies using the two OCT datasets, DB1 and DB2, respectively. These results illustrate the success of our model.Entities:
Keywords: OCT image classification; diabetic macular edema (DME); digital image processing; hybrid deep feature generation; iterative feature selection
Year: 2021 PMID: 34945957 PMCID: PMC8700736 DOI: 10.3390/e23121651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Summary of recent studies involving OCT images.
| Study | Method | Purpose | Results (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajagopalan et al. [ | CNN | Detecting DMD, DME and normal using OCT images | Acc: 95.70 |
| Alsaih et al. [ | Local binary patterns and histograms of oriented gradients | Classification of DME and normal using SD-OCT images | Spe: 87.50 |
| Sunija et al. [ | CNN | Classification of CNV, DME, Drusen and normal using OCT images | Acc: 99.69 |
| Das et al. [ | CNN | Classification of DME, Drusen, CNV and normal using OCT images | Acc: 99.60 |
| Lemaitre et al. [ | Local binary patterns | Identification of patients with DME versus normal subjects with SD-OCT images | Spe: 75.00 |
| Rong et al. [ | CNN | Classification of AMD, DME and normal using OCT images | Acc: 100.0 |
| Tayal et al. [ | CNN | Identification of CNV, DME, Drusen and normal using OCT images | Acc: 96.50 |
| Srinivasan et al. [ | CNN | Classification of normal, AMD and DME with SD-OCT images | Acc: |
| Hussain et al. [ | Random forest technique | Classification of normal, AMD and DME with SD-OCT images | Acc: 97.33 for two classes case (DME and normal) |
Figure 1Sample OCT images of the used OCT dataset (CNV—choroidal neovascularization, DME—diabetic macular edema). Images reproduced from ref. [33]. (a) CNV sample image, (b) DME sample image, (c) a sample image Drusen class, (d) a sample of healthy OCT.
Figure 2Sample OCT images of DB2 dataset (AMD—age related macular degeneration; DME—diabetic macular edema). Images reproduced from ref. [28]. (a) AMD disorder, (b) DME disorder, (c) healthy.
Figure 3Graphical illustration of the proposed multilevel fused/hybrid deep feature extraction-based OCT image classification model. Maximum, max-min, and max-mean pooling algorithms were used to generate decomposed images (c1, c2, …, c9). By employing transfer learning, 10,000 features were generated from each pre-trained CNN. These networks were trained on the ImageNet dataset. This dataset contained about 1.2 million images belonging to 1000 classes. In this work, we have used the last fully connected layer of each network. Thus, we generated 1000 features for each image. An original and nine compressed images are fed to each pre-trained network. Thus, 10,000 features are generated from an OCT image. One thousand features are selected from the generated 10,000 features utilizing ReliefF, and 18 loss values are calculated in the misclassification rate calculation block. The top five feature vectors were selected using calculated loss values, and the last feature vector with a length of 5000 is determined using the selected feature vectors. The IRF function selected the top features for classification, and results are obtained from SVM with a 10-fold cross-validation strategy. The parameters used in each framework are tabulated in Table 2.
Deep CNNs used for deep feature generation.
| No. | CNN | FE Layer | No. | CNN | FE Layer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ResNet18 | fc1000 | 10 | NasNetMobile | predictions |
| 2 | ResNet50 | fc1000 | 11 | NasNetLarge | predictions |
| 3 | ResNet101 | fc1000 | 12 | DenseNet201 | fc1000 |
| 4 | DarkNet19 | avg1 | 13 | InceptionV3 | predictions |
| 5 | MobileNetV2 | Logits | 14 | InceptionResNetV2 | predictions |
| 6 | DarkNet53 | conv53 | 15 | GoogLeNet | loss3-classifier |
| 7 | Xception | predictions | 16 | AlexNet | fc8 |
| 8 | EfficientNet b0 | MatMul | 17 | VGG16 | fc8 |
| 9 | ShuffleNet | node_202 | 18 | VGG19 | fc8 |
Figure 4Graphical representation of the used pooling functions with a 3 × 3 dimension sample block. Maximum pooling selects the maximum value. Max-mean and max-min pooling functions select the maximum column, and according to this example, the maximum column is [8,9,25]. By using [8,9,25] vector, max-mean pooling finds , and max-min pooling selects 8 as a compressed value.
Phases and parameters used in our proposed method.
| Phase | Method | Parameter |
|---|---|---|
| Feature extraction | Multiple multilevel pooling decomposition | Number of level: 3 |
| Deep feature generation and feature merging | 18 pre-trained convolutional neural networks are used to extract deep features from fully connected layers of these networks. | |
| Feature selection using ReliefF | The top 1000 features of 10,000 features generated are chosen. | |
| Loss value calculation | Quadratic SVM | |
| Top feature vectors selection | The top five feature vectors have been selected. | |
| Feature selection | Iterative ReliefF | Range of iteration: [100, 1000] |
| Classification | SVM | Kernel function: Polynomial |
Figure 5Confusion matrix obtained using our proposed framework for DB1.
Figure 6Confusion matrix obtained using our proposed framework for DB2.
Summary of results obtained using two datasets.
| Overall Result | DB1 | DB2 |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 97.40 | 100 |
| Precision | 97.40 | 100 |
| Cohen Kappa | 96.40 | 100 |
| F1-score | 97.40 | 100 |
| MCC | 96.53 | 100 |
| Recall | 96.53 | 100 |
Figure 7Accuracies and iterative feature selection. (a) Classification accuracies obtained using various deep pre-trained CNNs and (b) iterative feature selection process using IRF.
Figure 8t-test results: (a) boxplot of the calculated p-values, (b) number of observations with p-values are smaller than 0.05 via couple.
Summary of state-of-the-art retinal disorder classification models developed using OCT images.
| Study | Method | Classifier | Dataset | Split Ratio | Number of Class | The Results (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rong et al. [ | Convolution neural network | Convolution neural network | 45 subjects | 72:10:18 | 3 | Acc: 100.0 |
| Rasti et al. [ | Multi-Scale Convolutional Neural Network Ensemble | Softmax | Dataset 1 | 5-fold cross validation | 3 | AUC: 99.80 |
| Fang et at. [ | Lesion-aware convolution neural network | Softmax | 500 CNV | 10-fold cross validation | 4 | Acc: 90.10 |
| He et al. [ | Label smoothing generative adversarial network | Convolution neural network | 1. | Leave-p-out cross- validation | 1. 4 | 1. Pre: 87.25 |
| Seeböck et al. [ | Unsupervised deep learning | Random forest | 268 AMD (early AMD, late AMD) | 218 AMD | 3 | Acc: 81.40 |
| Alqudah [ | Automated convolutional neural network | Softmax | 250 CNV | 95.331 training | 5 | Acc: 97.10 |
| Huang et al. [ | Layer guided convolutional neural | Convolutional neural | 1. | 100:1 | 1. 4 | 1. Acc: 88.40 |
| Fang et al. [ | Iterative fusion convolutional neural network | Convolutional neural | 37.455 CNV | 10-fold cross validation | 4 | Acc: 87.30 |
| Saraiva et al. [ | Convolutional neural | Convolutional neural | 5.313 CNV | 100:1 | 4 | Acc: 94.35 |
| Our method | Convolutional neural networks, iterative ReliefF | Support vector machine | 2750 CNV | 10,000 train and 1000 test | 4 | Acc: 97.30 |
| 686 AMD | 10-fold cross-validation | 3 | Acc: 100 |