| Literature DB >> 35393449 |
Tsai-Chu Yeh1,2, An-Chun Luo3, Yu-Shan Deng3, Yu-Hsien Lee3, Shih-Jen Chen1,2, Po-Han Chang3, Chun-Ju Lin3, Ming-Chi Tai3,4, Yu-Bai Chou5,6.
Abstract
While prognosis and risk of progression are crucial in developing precise therapeutic strategy in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), limited predictive tools are available. We proposed a novel deep convolutional neural network that enables feature extraction through image and non-image data integration to seize imperative information and achieve highly accurate outcome prediction. The Heterogeneous Data Fusion Net (HDF-Net) was designed to predict visual acuity (VA) outcome (improvement ≥ 2 line or not) at 12th months after anti-VEGF treatment. A set of pre-treatment optical coherence tomography (OCT) image and non-image demographic features were employed as input data and the corresponding 12th-month post-treatment VA as the target data to train, validate, and test the HDF-Net. This newly designed HDF-Net demonstrated an AUC of 0.989 (95% CI 0.970-0.999), accuracy of 0.936 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.889-0.964], sensitivity of 0.933 (95% CI 0.841-0.974), and specificity of 0.938 (95% CI 0.877-0.969). By simulating the clinical decision process with mixed pre-treatment information from raw OCT images and numeric data, HDF-Net demonstrated promising performance in predicting individualized treatment outcome. The results highlight the potential of deep learning to simultaneously process a broad range of clinical data to weigh and leverage the complete information of the patient. This novel approach is an important step toward real-world personalized therapeutic strategy for typical nAMD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35393449 PMCID: PMC8989893 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09642-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(A) Illustration of the pre-process flow. (B) The flowchart of the HDF-Net process.
Figure 2The architecture of HDF-Net. The feature extraction network consists of five convolution layers. The first convolutional layer has 96 kernels within the size of 11 × 11, presented as "Conv1, 11 × 11 conv, 96", while the second convolutional layer has 256 kernels within the size of 5 × 5, the third and fourth convolutional layer has 384 kernels within the size of 3 × 3, and the fifth convolutional layer has 256 kernels within the size of 3 × 3.
Patient demographics.
| Total | Improved Group (VA increase ≥ 2 lines) | Unimproved Group (VA increase < 2 lines) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 698 | 165 | 533 | |
| Treatment-naïve (%) | 467 (66.91%) | 103 (62.42%) | 364 (68.29%) |
| Non-treatment-naïve (%) | 231 (33.09%) | 62 (37.58%) | 169 (31.71%) |
| Age years (± SD) | 78.47 | 78.47 | 83.28 |
| Male (%) | 466 (66.76%) | 97 (58.79%) | 369(69.23%) |
| Female (%) | 232 (33.24%) | 68 (41.21%) | 164(30.77%) |
| Pre-therapeutic BCVA (mean ± SD) | 0.21 | 0.32 | 0.19 |
| 12th month Post-therapeutic BCVA (mean ± SD) | 0.19 | 0.62 | 0.16 |
| Anti-VEGF injections in 12 months (mean ± SD) | 4.19 ± 2.11 | 4.50 ± 2.15 | 4.18 ± 2.11 |
| Aflibercept (%) | 544 (77.94%) | 134 (81.21%) | 410 (76.92%) |
| Ranibizumab (%) | 154 (22.06%) | 31 (18.79%) | 123 (23.08%) |
Figure 3Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and learning curve of the HDF-Net, ResNet50 and AlexNet for VA outcome prediction. (A) For binary classification tasks of VA improved or unimproved, the presented HDF-Net (red line) performs equally or better than the traditional AlexNet (orange line) and ResNet50 (purple line). (B) Loss versus iteration graph of HDF-Net showing loss of 0.351 at 16,000 iteration; (C) Accuracy versus iteration graph of HDF-Net showing a final validation accuracy of 93.6% at 16,000 iteration.
Figure 4Representative horizontal scans of SD-OCT and corresponding superimposed heatmaps. Presented are (A) an example of an OCT image with the HDF-Net correctly predicted as an improved case (85 M; baseline VA:0.2; 12th month VA: 0.5); (B) The network located attention on the margin of SRF, and on retinal pigment epithelial mottling. Also, some attention corresponded to islands of preserved ellipsoid zone (EZ) reflecting preserved visual potential. (C) An example of an OCT image with the HDF-Net correctly predicted as an unimproved case (94 M; baseline VA:0.05; 12th month VA: 0.1); (D) The attention is located at the subfoveal disciform scar and disruption of the EZ. There is also some attention on the chorioretinal atrophy with adjacent loss of outer retinal layers. (E) An example of an OCT image with the HDF-Net predicted to improve but the patient failed to achieve VA improvement > = 2 lines (96 M; baseline VA:0.4; 12th month VA: 0.4); (F) The attention is located primarily on the preserved EZ and the subretinal hyperreflective material (SHRM) with fibrovascular components. A relatively normal fovea contour was also identified. (G) An example of an OCT image with the HDF-Net predicted not to improve but the patient demonstrated VA improvement > = 2 lines (82 M; baseline VA:0.4; 12th month VA: 0.6); (H) The attention is located on the SHRM with fibrovascular/hemorrhagic components. Also some attention on the disruption of the EZ and the hyperreflective zone of the inner retina.