| Literature DB >> 35062405 |
Marriam Nawaz1, Tahira Nazir1, Ali Javed1, Usman Tariq2, Hwan-Seung Yong3, Muhammad Attique Khan4, Jaehyuk Cha5.
Abstract
Glaucoma is an eye disease initiated due to excessive intraocular pressure inside it and caused complete sightlessness at its progressed stage. Whereas timely glaucoma screening-based treatment can save the patient from complete vision loss. Accurate screening procedures are dependent on the availability of human experts who performs the manual analysis of retinal samples to identify the glaucomatous-affected regions. However, due to complex glaucoma screening procedures and shortage of human resources, we often face delays which can increase the vision loss ratio around the globe. To cope with the challenges of manual systems, there is an urgent demand for designing an effective automated framework that can accurately identify the Optic Disc (OD) and Optic Cup (OC) lesions at the earliest stage. Efficient and effective identification and classification of glaucomatous regions is a complicated job due to the wide variations in the mass, shade, orientation, and shapes of lesions. Furthermore, the extensive similarity between the lesion and eye color further complicates the classification process. To overcome the aforementioned challenges, we have presented a Deep Learning (DL)-based approach namely EfficientDet-D0 with EfficientNet-B0 as the backbone. The presented framework comprises three steps for glaucoma localization and classification. Initially, the deep features from the suspected samples are computed with the EfficientNet-B0 feature extractor. Then, the Bi-directional Feature Pyramid Network (BiFPN) module of EfficientDet-D0 takes the computed features from the EfficientNet-B0 and performs the top-down and bottom-up keypoints fusion several times. In the last step, the resultant localized area containing glaucoma lesion with associated class is predicted. We have confirmed the robustness of our work by evaluating it on a challenging dataset namely an online retinal fundus image database for glaucoma analysis (ORIGA). Furthermore, we have performed cross-dataset validation on the High-Resolution Fundus (HRF), and Retinal Image database for Optic Nerve Evaluation (RIM ONE DL) datasets to show the generalization ability of our work. Both the numeric and visual evaluations confirm that EfficientDet-D0 outperforms the newest frameworks and is more proficient in glaucoma classification.Entities:
Keywords: EfficientDet; EfficientNet; fundus images; glaucoma
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062405 PMCID: PMC8780798 DOI: 10.3390/s22020434
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Optic Nerve Head images (a) Normal eye (b) Glaucomatous eye image.
Comparative analysis of existing approaches.
| Reference | Technique | Accuracy | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ML-based | |||
| [ | CED, FEM along with the SVM classifier. | 93.22% | The model is tested on a small dataset. |
| [ | Glowworm Swarm Optimization algorithm | 94.86% | The work is unable to compute the cup-to-disc ratio. |
| [ | SS-QB-VMD along with the LS-SVM classifier. | 92.67% | The classification accuracy requires further improvements. |
| [ | Pixel-based threshold along with the watershed transformation | 96.1% | The approach is not robust to scale and rotation alterations in the input image. |
| [ | The disk selective COSFIRE filters along with the GMLVQ classifier. | 97.78% | The work is not robust to noisy samples. |
| DL-based | |||
| [ | MobileNetV2 with CNN classifier. | 88% | The work requires extensive data for model training. |
| [ | ECNet along with the KNN, SVM, BPNN, and ELM classifiers. | 96.37% | The technique is economically expensive. |
| [ | CNN | 98% | The approach needs evaluation on a standard dataset. |
| [ | ResNet-50 | NA | The work is not robust to noise and blurring in the suspected images. |
| [ | DenseNet-201 | 97% | This approach requires further performance improvements. |
| [ | AlexNet, ResNet-50, and ResNet-152 | 88% | The work requires extensive processing power. |
| [ | Mask-RCNN | 96.5% | The work needs further performance improvements. |
| [ | FRCNN along with the FKM | 95% | The work is computationally inefficient. |
| [ | UNET | 96.44% | Detection accuracy is dependent on the quality of fundus samples. |
| [ | VGG-16 | 83.03% | The model needs extensive training data. |
| [ | Faster-RCNN | 96.14% | The work is not robust to color variations of the input images. |
| [ | WSMTL | NA | The classification performance requires improvements. |
| [ | ResNet | 88% | The method is not robust to blurry images. |
Figure 2Flow diagram of Proposed Technique.
Figure 3Annotation samples.
Training parameters of the proposed solution.
| Model Parameters | Value |
|---|---|
| No. of epochs | 60 |
| Learning rate | 0.01 |
| Selected batch size | 90 |
| Confidence score value | 0.5 |
| Unmatched Score value | 0.5 |
Figure 4EfficientNet-B0 architecture.
Figure 5Sample dataset images.
Figure 6Localization results of EfficientDet-D0 for glaucoma localization.
Figure 7Confusion Matrix of the introduced framework.
Comparative analysis with other object detection frameworks.
| Model |
| Test Time (s/img) |
|---|---|---|
| RCNN | 0.913 | 0.30 |
| Faster-RCNN | 0.940 | 0.25 |
| Mask-RCNN | 0.942 | 0.24 |
| DenseNet77-based Mask-RCNN | 0.965 | 0.23 |
| Proposed | 0.971 | 0.20 |
Performance comparison with latest approaches.
| Approach | AUC | Recall | Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liao et al. [ | 0.880 | - | - |
| Fu et al. [ | 0.910 | 0.920 | - |
| Bajwa et al. [ | 0.868 | 0.710 | - |
| Nazir et al. [ | 0.941 | 0.945 | 0.90 |
| Nazir et al. [ | 0.970 | 0.963 | 0.55 |
| Proposed | 0.979 | 0.970 | 0.20 |
Figure 8Cross-Validation Results where the model is trained on the ORIGA dataset and test on the HRF dataset.
Figure 9Cross-Validation Results where the model is trained on the ORIGA dataset and test on the RIM ONE DL dataset.
Figure 10Cross-Validation Results where the model is trained on the RIM ONE DL dataset and test on the ORIGA dataset.
Performance comparison of cross-dataset validation.
| Dataset | ORIGA (Test) | HRF (Test) | RIM-ONE DL (Test) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ORIGA (trained) | 97.20% | 98.21% | 97.96% |
| RIM-ONE DL (trained) | 97.83% | 98.19% | 97.85% |