| Literature DB >> 35212716 |
Hung-Ju Chen1, Yu-Len Huang2, Siu-Lun Tse2, Wei-Ping Hsia1, Chung-Hao Hsiao1, Yang Wang2, Chia-Jen Chang3,1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation between choroidal thickness and myopia progression using a deep learning method.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35212716 PMCID: PMC8883159 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.2.38
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.Physiologic structure of the CiB and the CoB.
Figure 2.The schematic architecture of mask R-CNN. RPN, region proposal network.
Figure 3.One case with an unreasonable dent in the boundary. (A) Manual segmentation result. (B) Automatic segmentation result with erroneous kink (arrow) in the boundary before the postprocessing procedure. (C) Automatic segmentation result after the postprocessing procedure.
Figure 4.Sketching result of one case. (A) Original image. (B) Manual segmentation result. (C) Automatic segmentation result.
Demographic of Baseline Characteristics of Two Groups Divided by Axial Length
| Demographic Feature | Non–High-Myopia Group | High-Myopia Group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of eyes (patients) | 51 (47) | 42 (34) | 0.608 |
| Men | 18 | 17 | |
| Women | 33 | 25 | |
| Age, y | 0.472 | ||
| Median (IQR) | 53 (49–55) | 54 (49–56) | |
| Range | 41–64 | 42–64 | |
| Axial length, mm | <0.001 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 24.32 ± 1.07 | 27.69 ± 1.17 | |
| Range | 22.14–25.98 | 26.05–30.13 |
IQR, interquartile range.
Performance of Proposed Model in Data Set B
| Characteristic | Total, Mean ± SD | Non–High-Myopia Group, Mean ± SD | High-Myopia Group, Mean ± SD |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average CT by automatic segmentation, µm | 173.06 ± 57.06 | 204.83 ± 46.29 | 134.84 ± 43.83 | <0.001 |
| Average CT by manual segmentation, µm | 184.00 ± 61.19 | 218.82 ± 49.32 | 142.12 ± 45.93 | <0.001 |
| Average error for inner choroidal boundary segmentation, µm | 6.72 ± 2.12 | 6.76 ± 2.17 | 6.69 ± 2.07 | 0.421 |
| Average error for outer choroidal boundary segmentation, µm | 13.75 ± 7.57 | 15.07 ± 8.38 | 12.17 ± 6.10 | <0.001 |
| Mean DSC between automatic and manual segmented regions, % | 93.87 ± 2.89 | 94.81 ± 1.98 | 92.74 ± 3.37 | <0.001 |
CT, choroidal thickness.
Figure 5.(A) Scatterplot of choroidal thickness measurement between automatic and manual methods. (B) Bland–Altman plot of automated choroidal thickness measurements minus manual choroidal thickness measurements over the EDTRS region.
Multivariate Linear Regression Analysis to Determine the Factors Related to the Choroidal Thickness Estimated by the Proposed Model
| Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor Variable | B | SE | β | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | 95% CI for B, |
| Sex | −10.342 | 7.011 | −0.097 | −24.273 | 3.589 | 0.144 |
| Age | −1.613 | 0.701 | −0.151 | −3.006 | −0.220 | 0.024 |
| Axial length | −20.195 | 1.696 | −0.784 | −23.565 | −16.826 | <0.001 |
The final regression model had an adjusted R2 = 0.606. CI, confidence interval;
SE, standard error.
Comparison in Upper Border Error, Lower Border Error, and Dice Coefficient
| Method | Upper Border Error, Mean ± SD, µm | Lower Border Error, Mean ± SD, µm | Dice Similarity Coefficient, Mean ± SD, % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed method | 6.72 ± 2.12 | 13.75 ± 7.57 | 93.87 ± 2.89 |
| U-Net | 7.13 ± 10.05 | 21.84 ± 18.80 | 92.78 ± 4.16 |