| Literature DB >> 35154003 |
Wenqi Lv1, Ying Song2, Rongxin Fu1, Xue Lin1, Ya Su1, Xiangyu Jin1, Han Yang1, Xiaohui Shan1, Wenli Du1, Qin Huang1, Hao Zhong1, Kai Jiang1, Zhi Zhang3, Lina Wang2, Guoliang Huang1,3.
Abstract
The high prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) among reproductive-aged women has attracted more and more attention. As a common disorder that is likely to threaten women's health physically and mentally, the detection of PCOS is a growing public health concern worldwide. In this paper, we proposed an automated deep learning algorithm for the auxiliary detection of PCOS, which explores the potential of scleral changes in PCOS detection. The algorithm was applied to the dataset that contains the full-eye images of 721 Chinese women, among which 388 are PCOS patients. Inputs of the proposed algorithm are scleral images segmented from full-eye images using an improved U-Net, and then a Resnet model was applied to extract deep features from scleral images. Finally, a multi-instance model was developed to achieve classification. Various performance indices such as AUC, classification accuracy, precision, recall, precision, and F1-score were adopted to assess the performance of our algorithm. Results show that our method achieves an average AUC of 0.979 and a classification accuracy of 0.929, which indicates the great potential of deep learning in the detection of PCOS.Entities:
Keywords: convolutional neural networks; deep learning; multi-instance learning; polycystic ovary syndrome; sclera
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35154003 PMCID: PMC8828568 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.789878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1The device for data acquisition and data collected for experiments. (A) The specially designed device. (B) The diagram of reflection-shadows-free scleral images. (C) Images of the left and right eyes with eyeballs rotating in different directions: up, down, left, and right.
Figure 2Overview of the scleral segmentation model embedded with attention module.
Figure 3Overview of the framework of the diagnosis algorithm.
Results of comparison between different feature extraction networks in 5-fold cross-validation experiments.
| Task | AUC | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGG16 | 0.942 ± 0.007 | 0.871 ± 0.005 | 0.885 ± 0.005 | 0.874 ± 0.005 | 0.879 ± 0.005 |
| VGG19 | 0.940 ± 0.019 | 0.877 ± 0.031 | 0.892 ± 0.027 | 0.876 ± 0.031 | 0.884 ± 0.029 |
| Inception | 0.967 ± 0.012 | 0.913 ± 0.014 | 0.924 ± 0.013 | 0.912 ± 0.013 | 0.918 ± 0.013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bold values means that Resnet had the best performance.
Figure 4ROC curves of classification results using different feature extraction networks.
Figure 5Visualization results with Grad-CAM.