| Literature DB >> 35047151 |
Congjun Liu1, Penghui Gu2, Zhiyong Xiao2.
Abstract
Retinal vessel segmentation is essential for the detection and diagnosis of eye diseases. However, it is difficult to accurately identify the vessel boundary due to the large variations of scale in the retinal vessels and the low contrast between the vessel and the background. Deep learning has a good effect on retinal vessel segmentation since it can capture representative and distinguishing features for retinal vessels. An improved U-Net algorithm for retinal vessel segmentation is proposed in this paper. To better identify vessel boundaries, the traditional convolutional operation CNN is replaced by a global convolutional network and boundary refinement in the coding part. To better divide the blood vessel and background, the improved position attention module and channel attention module are introduced in the jumping connection part. Multiscale input and multiscale dense feature pyramid cascade modules are used to better obtain feature information. In the decoding part, convolutional long and short memory networks and deep dilated convolution are used to extract features. In public datasets, DRIVE and CHASE_DB1, the accuracy reached 96.99% and 97.51%. The average performance of the proposed algorithm is better than that of existing algorithms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35047151 PMCID: PMC8763561 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5188362
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Global convolution network (a) and boundary refinement (b).
Figure 2Network mechanism.
Figure 3Attention module. (a) Position attention module (b) Channel attention module.
Figure 4Multiscale DenseASPP. AVGPOOL is an average pooling operation. The rate represents the dilated rate. UPSAMPLE stands for upsampling. BN + Drop stands for batch normalization and dropout operations.
Figure 5Preprocessing result.
Comparison of preprocessing results.
| Dataset | Method | Se (%) | Ac (%) | AUC (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRIVE | Unpreprocessing | 81.78 | 96.99 | 98.74 | 82.67 |
| Preprocessing |
|
|
|
| |
| CHASE_DB1 | Unpreprocessing | 80.12 | 97.48 | 99.00 | 83.48 |
| Preprocessing |
|
|
|
|
The best values of Se, Ac, AUC, and F1-score are shown in bold.
Comparison of segmentation algorithms of several improved strategies.
| Method | DRIVE | CHASE_DB1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Se (%) | Ac (%) | AUC (%) |
| Se (%) | Ac (%) | AUC |
| |
| A1 [ | 75.37 | 95.31 | 97.55 | 81.42 | 82.88 | 95.78 | 97.72% | 77.83 |
| A2 | 82.96 | 96.94 | 98.69 | 82.61 | 81.13 | 97.48 | 98.95% | 82.97 |
| A3 | 83.08 | 96.96 | 98.73 | 82.77 | 81.25 | 97.49 | 98.97% | 83.50 |
| A4 | 83.11 | 96.97 | 98.75 | 82.82 | 81.37 | 97.50 | 98.99 | 83.52 |
| A5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparison of parameters before and after the addition of MDASPP.
| Method | Number of parameters |
|---|---|
| GCN + BR_SA + PA_ConvLSTM_Mnet | 14,223,095 |
| Proposed method |
|
The less number of parameters is shown in bold.
The results of different algorithms in the DRIVE dataset.
| Dataset | Methods | Year | Se (%) | Ac (%) | AUC (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRIVE | R2U-Net [ | 2018 | 77.92 | 95.56 | 97.84 | 81.71 |
| U-Net [ | 2018 | 75.37 | 95.31 | 97.55 | 81.42 | |
| LadderNet [ | 2018 | 78.56 | 95.61 | 97.93 | 82.02 | |
| DUNet [ | 2019 | 78.94 | 96.97 | 98.56 | N/A | |
| DEU-Net [ | 2019 | 79.40 | 95.67 | 97.72 | 82.70 | |
| AG-Net [ | 2019 | 81.00 | 96.92 | 98.56 | N/A | |
| IterNet [ | 2019 | 77.35 | 95.73 | 98.16 | 82.05 | |
| BCDU-Net [ | 2019 | 80.07 | 95.60 | 97.89 | 82.24 | |
| Tang et al. [ | 2020 | 81.60 | 95.54 | 97.99 | N/A | |
| Lü et al. [ | 2020 | 80.62 | 95.47 | 97.39 | N/A | |
| SA-UNet [ | 2020 | 82.12 | 96.98 | 98.64 | 82.63 | |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2020 | 81.51 | 96.95 | 98.63 | N/A | |
| RVSeg-Net [ | 2020 | 81.07 | 96.81 | 98.17 | N/A | |
| Proposed method | 2021 |
|
|
|
|
The results of different algorithms in the CHASE_DB1 dataset.
| Dataset | Methods | Year | Se (%) | Ac (%) | AUC (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHASE_DB1 | R2U-Net [ | 2018 | 77.92 | 95.56 | 97.84 | 81.71 |
| U-Net [ | 2018 |
| 95.78 | 97.72 | 77.83 | |
| LadderNet [ | 2018 | 79.78 | 96.56 | 98.39 | 80.31 | |
| DEU-Net [ | 2019 | 80.74 | 96.61 | 98.12 | 80.37 | |
| IterNet [ | 2019 | 80.73 | 96.55 | 98.51 | 80.73 | |
| AG-Net [ | 2019 | 81.86 | 97.43 | 98.63 | N/A | |
| Lü et al. [ | 2020 | 81.35 | 96.17 | 97.82 | N/A | |
| RVSeg-Net [ | 2020 | 80.69 | 97.26 | 98.33 | N/A | |
| Proposed method | 2021 | 81.49 |
|
|
|
The best values of Se, Ac, AUC, and F1-score are shown in bold.
Figure 6Segmentation results of different models.