| Literature DB >> 35124604 |
Junwei Hu, Zhuangzhi Yan, Jiehui Jiang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tongue inspection is vital in traditional Chinese medicine. Fissured tongue is an important feature in tongue diagnosis, and primarily corresponds to three Chinese medicine syndromes: syndrome-related hotness, blood deficiency, and insufficiency of the spleen. Diagnosis of the syndrome is significantly affected by the experience of clinicians, and it is difficult for young doctors to perform accurate diagnoses.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese medicine syndrome; convolutional neural network; fissured tongue
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35124604 PMCID: PMC9028628 DOI: 10.3233/THC-228026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Technol Health Care ISSN: 0928-7329 Impact factor: 1.205
Figure 1.Illustration of the architecture of the syndrome diagnosis model.
Figure 2.Examples of labeled fissured regions.
Figure 3.Fissured region detection network structure.
Figure 4.Fissure feature extraction model based on G-TongueNet.
Figure 5.Some fissured regions detected by SSD.
Figure 6.ROC of the global feature models.
Comparison of the classification metrics of different global feature learning models
| Model | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syndrome-related hotness | G-TongueNet | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.81 |
| G-ResNet18 | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.76 | 0.75 | |
| G-InceptionV3 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.74 | 0.77 | |
| Blood deficiency | G-TongueNet | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| G-ResNet18 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.74 | 0.83 | |
| G-InceptionV3 | 0.81 | 0.88 | 0.68 | 0.78 | |
| Insufficiency of the spleen | G-TongueNet | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.65 | 0.82 |
| G-ResNet18 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.84 | |
| G-InceptionV3 | 0.84 | 0.88 | 0.71 | 0.82 |
Comparison of the complexity and overall accuracy of different global feature learning models
| Number of parameters (MB) | Time complexity (GFLOPs) | Space complexity (MB) | Overall accuracy (95% CI) | Accuracy difference (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G-ResNet18 | 42.66 | 9.58 | 54.63 | 0.72 | |
| (0.691, 0.742) | ( | ||||
| G-TongueNet |
|
|
|
| |
| (0.704, 0.798) | |||||
| G-InceptionV3 | 453.00 | 9.80 | 510.80 | 0.71 | ( |
| (0.664, 0.728) |
Figure 7.ROC of local feature models.
Comparison of the classification metrics between different local feature learning models
| Model | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syndrome-related hotness | L-TongueNet | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.80 |
| L-ResNet18 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.76 | 0.78 | |
| L-InceptionV3 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.69 | 0.77 | |
| Blood deficiency | L-TongueNet | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.80 |
| L-ResNet18 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.82 | |
| L-InceptionV3 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.75 | 0.79 | |
| Insufficiency of the spleen | L-TongueNet | 0.72 | 0.90 | 0.52 | 0.76 |
| L-ResNet18 | 0.73 | 0.93 | 0.54 | 0.83 | |
| L-InceptionV3 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 0.64 | 0.79 |
Comparison of the complexity and overall accuracy of different local feature learning models
| Number of parameters (MB) | Time complexity (GFLOPs) | Space complexity (MB) | Overall accuracy (95% CI) | Accuracy difference (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L-ResNet18 | 42.66 | 9.58 | 54.63 | 0.72 | |
| (0.679, 0.735) | ( | ||||
| L-TongueNet | 1.09 | 1.19 | 30.30 | 0.72 | |
| (0.682, 0.748) | |||||
| L-InceptionV3 | 453.00 | 9.80 | 510.80 | 0.69 | ( |
| (0.655, 0.724) |
Figure 8.ROC of different classifiers.
Comparison of the classification metrics of different classifiers
| Model | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syndrome-related hotness | SVM |
|
| 0.82 |
|
| GBDT |
| 0.88 |
|
| |
| BP | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.81 | 0.85 | |
| Blood deficiency | SVM | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.78 | 0.84 |
| GBDT |
|
| 0.75 | 0.81 | |
| BP |
|
|
|
| |
| Insufficiency of the spleen | SVM |
|
|
|
|
| GBDT | 0.82 |
| 0.70 | 0.73 | |
| BP | 0.81 |
| 0.70 | 0.75 |
Comparison of overall accuracy and accuracy difference of different classifiers
| Model | Overall accuracy (95% CI) | Accuracy difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| SVM | 0.77 | |
| (0.754, 0.789) | ( | |
| GBDT |
| |
| (0.747, 0.801) | ||
| BP | 0.77 | ( |
| (0.733, 0.796) |
Comparison of the overall accuracy and difference in the accuracy of models based on different features
| Model | Overall accuracy (95% CI) | Accuracy difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Model based on global features | 0.75 | |
| (0.704, 0.789) | ( | |
| Model based on fusion features |
| |
| (0.747, 0.801) | ||
| Model based on local features | 0.72 | ( |
| (0.682, 0.748) |