| Literature DB >> 35665292 |
Nagaraja Gundluru1, Dharmendra Singh Rajput2, Kuruva Lakshmanna2, Rajesh Kaluri2, Mohammad Shorfuzzaman3, Mueen Uddin4, Mohammad Arifin Rahman Khan5.
Abstract
In today's world, diabetic retinopathy is a very severe health issue, which is affecting many humans of different age groups. Due to the high levels of blood sugar, the minuscule blood vessels in the retina may get damaged in no time and further may lead to retinal detachment and even sometimes lead to glaucoma blindness. If diabetic retinopathy can be diagnosed at the early stages, then many of the affected people will not be losing their vision and also human lives can be saved. Several machine learning and deep learning methods have been applied on the available data sets of diabetic retinopathy, but they were unable to provide the better results in terms of accuracy in preprocessing and optimizing the classification and feature extraction process. To overcome the issues like feature extraction and optimization in the existing systems, we have considered the Diabetic Retinopathy Debrecen Data Set from the UCI machine learning repository and designed a deep learning model with principal component analysis (PCA) for dimensionality reduction, and to extract the most important features, Harris hawks optimization algorithm is used further to optimize the classification and feature extraction process. The results shown by the deep learning model with respect to specificity, precision, accuracy, and recall are very much satisfactory compared to the existing systems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35665292 PMCID: PMC9162819 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8512469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Review of deep learning applications in diabetic retinopathy and other datasets.
| Reference | Dataset | Method used | Evaluation metrics | Research challenges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Diabetic retinopathy (DR) dataset consisted of 75137 images | 5-Fold cross-validation and data-driven deep learning algorithm | Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC score | The results were not properly evaluated using typical state-of-the-art models |
| [ | 73 patients (122 eyes) were evaluated, 50.7% men and 49.3% women | RBM-1000, RBM-500, and OPF-1000 | Sensitivity measured, specificity, and accuracy | More in-depth analysis on larger datasets was missing and accuracy may also be improved |
| [ | 14,186 retinal images and Messidor dataset with 1200 images | Deep learning algorithm | Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and AUC | Dataset is fixed and is not compared with other technique |
| [ | 128175 retinal images, EyePACS-1 dataset consisted of 9963 images, and Messidor-2 dataset with 1748 images | Deep convolutional neural network | The algorithm had 97.5% and 96.1% sensitivity and 93.4% and 93.9% specificity in the 2 validation sets | Limited dataset, system maybe failed to learn more complex features |
| [ | Heart disease dataset | Effective heart disease prediction system using enhanced deep genetic algorithm and adaptive Harris hawks optimization-based clustering | Accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, and F-score | Requires more improvement in the learning process |
| [ | COVID-CT-dataset: 349 and 397 images and CT scans for COVID-19 classification: 4,001 and 9,979 images | Hybrid learning and optimization approach CovH2SD-CovH2SD uses DL. HHO algorithm to optimize the hyperparameters | Accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC performance metrics | Not good for multiclass classification |
| [ | Hand gesture dataset from Kaggle repository | HHO is used for hyperparameter tuning of CNN for enhancing hand gesture recognition | Reduction of the burden on the CNN by reducing the training time and 100% accuracy for hand gesture classification is attained | Requires more improvement in the learning process |
Figure 1Various stages during the HHO algorithm.
Figure 2Illustration of overall vectors in the strategy of hard surrounding with one hawk.
Figure 3Illustration of overall vectors in the strategy of soft surrounding with progressive quick dives.
Figure 4Illustration of overall vectors in the strategy of hard surrounding with progressive quick dives.
Figure 5Analysis of activation functions.
Figure 6Analysis of optimizers.
Figure 7Analysis based on the number of layers.
Figure 8Analysis based on the number of epochs.
Figure 9Analysis of DNN-based models.
Figure 10Analysis of DT-based models.
Figure 11Analysis of KNN-based models.
Figure 12Analysis of NB-based models.
Figure 13Analysis of SVM-based models.
Figure 14Analysis of XGBoost-based models.
Figure 15Training time analysis for DNN-based models.
Summary of the experimental results.
| Metric ⟶method ↓ | DNN | DNN-PCA | DNN-PCA-HHO | DT | DT-PCA | DT-PCA-HHO | KNN | KNN-PCA | KNN-PCA-HHO | NB | NB-PCA | NB-PCA-HHO | SVM | SVM-PCA | SVM-PCA-HHO | XGBoost | XGBoost-PCA | XGBoost-PCA-HHO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 96.7 | 91.2 | 97 | 89.1 | 87 | 91.2 | 59.4 | 66 | 73.9 | 58 | 65 | 71.5 | 75 | 66 | 77.5 | 84.5 | 81 | 88 |
| Precision | 95.6 | 90.7 | 97 | 89.6 | 87 | 92.3 | 59.2 | 66 | 74.1 | 58 | 67 | 72.7 | 76 | 79 | 81.7 | 85.2 | 81 | 90 |
| Recall | 95.7 | 91.4 | 97 | 90.2 | 88 | 93.0 | 59.3 | 67 | 79.1 | 60 | 65 | 71.6 | 75 | 66 | 78.6 | 84.3 | 81 | 90 |
| Sensitivity | 91.1 | 88.3 | 91 | 86.9 | 85 | 90.5 | 60.9 | 64 | 72.1 | 61 | 63 | 72.5 | 84 | 86 | 88.2 | 76.5 | 82 | 84 |
| Specificity | 95.1 | 92.2 | 96 | 91.1 | 91 | 93.4 | 57.9 | 64 | 68.2 | 58 | 65 | 73.2 | 85 | 60 | 90.3 | 64.6 | 80 | 82 |