| Literature DB >> 35746092 |
Hamada R H Al-Absi1, Mohammad Tariqul Islam2, Mahmoud Ahmed Refaee3, Muhammad E H Chowdhury4, Tanvir Alam1.
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death worldwide. People affected by CVDs may go undiagnosed until the occurrence of a serious heart failure event such as stroke, heart attack, and myocardial infraction. In Qatar, there is a lack of studies focusing on CVD diagnosis based on non-invasive methods such as retinal image or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). In this study, we aimed at diagnosing CVD using a novel approach integrating information from retinal images and DXA data. We considered an adult Qatari cohort of 500 participants from Qatar Biobank (QBB) with an equal number of participants from the CVD and the control groups. We designed a case-control study with a novel multi-modal (combining data from multiple modalities-DXA and retinal images)-to propose a deep learning (DL)-based technique to distinguish the CVD group from the control group. Uni-modal models based on retinal images and DXA data achieved 75.6% and 77.4% accuracy, respectively. The multi-modal model showed an improved accuracy of 78.3% in classifying CVD group and the control group. We used gradient class activation map (GradCAM) to highlight the areas of interest in the retinal images that influenced the decisions of the proposed DL model most. It was observed that the model focused mostly on the centre of the retinal images where signs of CVD such as hemorrhages were present. This indicates that our model can identify and make use of certain prognosis markers for hypertension and ischemic heart disease. From DXA data, we found higher values for bone mineral density, fat content, muscle mass and bone area across majority of the body parts in CVD group compared to the control group indicating better bone health in the Qatari CVD cohort. This seminal method based on DXA scans and retinal images demonstrate major potentials for the early detection of CVD in a fast and relatively non-invasive manner.Entities:
Keywords: DXA; Qatar Biobank (QBB); cardiovascular diseases; deep learning; machine learning; retina
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35746092 PMCID: PMC9228833 DOI: 10.3390/s22124310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Summary of DXA and retinal image-based works for CVD associated risk factor; (AUC: Area under the curve, MAE: mean absolute error, N/A: Not available).
| Reference | Year | Dataset | Cohort | ML/DL Results | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retinal Images Data | |||||
| [ | 2016 | Retina Images | Images of 79 CVD | AUC: | The paper evaluated three stepwise logistic regression models to |
| [ | 2020 | Retina Images | >70,000 images | N/A | The paper developed a DL system to assess retinal vessel caliber |
| [ | 2020 | Retina Images | Retina images | Accuracy of 78.7% for | The study aimed at predicting hypertension, hyperglycemia, and |
| [ | 2020 | Retina Images | 12,000 images | AUC (sex): 0.97; | The paper investigated the possibility of fundus images in |
| [ | 2020 | Retina Images | Images of 2333 | N/A | The study investigated association between cardiometabolic risk |
| DXA Data | |||||
| [ | 2012 | DXA Data | 409 participants | N/A | The study aims at comparing BMI with direct measure of fat and |
| [ | 2014 | DXA Data | 616 ambulatory patients | N/A | The researchers looked at how body composition factors affect BMI |
| [ | 2016 | DXA Data | 117 patients with heart failure | N/A | The study that was conducted on patients from Germany, England |
| [ | 2020 | DXA Data | 570 patients with | N/A | The goal of the study was to see how aging and heart failure |
| [ | 2020 | Anthropometric | 558 participants who were not | N/A | The study, which was based on Qatari population from QBB, |
| [ | 2020 | Demographic, | 2802 participants from QBB | N/A | The goal of the study was to find the body fat composition cut-off |
CVD detection based on multi-modal dataset.
| Ref. | Year | Country | Fused Data | Results | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 2019 | USA | Electronic Health Record (EHR) | AUROC: 0.790 | The study used a 10-year data from HER and genetic data to predict CVD |
| [ | 2020 | China | Electrocardiogram (ECG), | Accuracy: 96.67 | The study aimed at the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). |
| [ | 2020 | USA | Sensors (collect blood pressure, | Results after | The study aimed at predicting heart diseases (such as heart attack or stroke) using |
| [ | 2021 | Greece | Myocardial Perfusion Imaging | Accuracy: 78.44 | The study aimed at cardiovascular disease diagnosis using MPI and Clinical data. |
| [ | 2021 | USA | Electronic medical records | AUROC: 0.86 | The study aimed at developing a risk assessment model of ischemic heart disease |
| [ | 2021 | USA | Genetic, clinical, Demographic, | - | The study aimed at evaluating the ability of machine learning in detecting CAD |
Figure 1Some randomly selected images from the QBB retinal image dataset.
Figure 2Examples of few low-quality images.
Figure 3Example of images from QBB dataset before and after pre-processing.
Figure 4Hybrid model to distinguish CVD from non-CVD using Retinal Images and DXA tabular data. CNN stem for Retinal Image was based on ResNet-34 architecture [68]. The MLP stem includes Linear (Lin), Batch Normalization (BN), Dropout (Dr) layers as shown in the diagram. Both stems were integrated, and their output was fed into the Classification Head having multiple layers of BN, Dr, Lin, ReLU, BN, Dr, and finally a single linear layer as output layer (CVD or non-CVD).
Details of the layers in the MLP stem and the Classification Head of Hybrid model.
| Layer Name | Output Size | |
|---|---|---|
| MLP Stem | ||
| Linear | 8 | |
| ReLU | 8 | |
| BatchNorm1d | 8 | |
| Dropout | 8 | |
| Linear | 8 | |
| Classification Head | ||
| BatchNorm1d | 264 | |
| Dropout | 264 | |
| Linear | 32 | |
| ReLU | 32 | |
| BatchNorm1d | 32 | |
| Dropout | 32 | |
| Linear | 2 | |
Performance of ML techniques for ablation study on DXA Model.
| Property (No of Features) | Evaluation Metric | DT | MLP | RF | LR | CatBoost | XGBoost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bone Mineral Density (55) | Accuracy | 0.620 | 0.682 | 0.686 | 0.732 | 0.710 | 0.726 |
| Sensitivity | 0.617 | 0.574 | 0.647 | 0.678 | 0.635 | 0.672 | |
| Specificity | 0.628 | 0.795 | 0.724 | 0.785 | 0.784 | 0.780 | |
| Precision | 0.624 | 0.740 | 0.701 | 0.758 | 0.746 | 0.758 | |
| F1-score | 0.609 | 0.639 | 0.672 | 0.716 | 0.685 | 0.710 | |
| MCC | 0.250 | 0.382 | 0.373 | 0.466 | 0.424 | 0.456 | |
| 1.996 × 10 | 1.089 × 10 | 1.664 × 10 | 1.536 × 10 | 6.623 × 10 | 1.332 × 10 | ||
| Body Fat Composition (15) | Accuracy | 0.720 | 0.770 | 0.746 | 0.742 | 0.740 | 0.754 |
| Sensitivity | 0.594 | 0.640 | 0.697 | 0.741 | 0.673 | 0.723 | |
| Specificity | 0.832 | 0.902 | 0.789 | 0.749 | 0.806 | 0.787 | |
| Precision | 0.790 | 0.867 | 0.770 | 0.747 | 0.777 | 0.767 | |
| F1-score | 0.669 | 0.734 | 0.731 | 0.741 | 0.720 | 0.743 | |
| MCC | 0.445 | 0.560 | 0.489 | 0.488 | 0.482 | 0.508 | |
| 1.248 × 10 | 1.175 × 10 | 1.110 × 10 | 1.052 × 10 | 4.975 × 10 | 9.515 × 10 | ||
| Lean Mass (7) | Accuracy | 0.576 | 0.652 | 0.690 | 0.634 | 0.668 | 0.702 |
| Sensitivity | 0.556 | 0.652 | 0.674 | 0.613 | 0.702 | 0.669 | |
| Specificity | 0.596 | 0.664 | 0.710 | 0.657 | 0.638 | 0.736 | |
| Precision | 0.582 | 0.717 | 0.699 | 0.641 | 0.661 | 0.716 | |
| F1-score | 0.560 | 0.650 | 0.683 | 0.625 | 0.678 | 0.691 | |
| MCC | 0.156 | 0.329 | 0.386 | 0.270 | 0.342 | 0.406 | |
| 9.083 × 10 | 6.950 × 10 | 8.326 × 10 | 7.994 × 10 | 3.984 × 10 | 7.402 × 10 | ||
| Area Measurements (45) | Accuracy | 0.580 | 0.614 | 0.600 | 0.664 | 0.644 | 0.598 |
| Sensitivity | 0.546 | 0.528 | 0.624 | 0.665 | 0.660 | 0.605 | |
| Specificity | 0.623 | 0.698 | 0.584 | 0.667 | 0.633 | 0.597 | |
| Precision | 0.597 | 0.636 | 0.602 | 0.675 | 0.644 | 0.598 | |
| F1-score | 0.556 | 0.575 | 0.607 | 0.664 | 0.647 | 0.598 | |
| MCC | 0.175 | 0.230 | 0.210 | 0.335 | 0.295 | 0.203 | |
| 7.138 × 10 | 4.135 × 10 | 6.662 × 10 | 6.447 × 10 | 3.332 × 10 | 6.057 × 10 | ||
| All (122) | Accuracy | 0.672 | 0.750 | 0.748 | 0.768 | 0.750 | 0.774 |
| Sensitivity | 0.658 | 0.656 | 0.704 | 0.761 | 0.694 | 0.754 | |
| Specificity | 0.691 | 0.855 | 0.797 | 0.780 | 0.812 | 0.800 | |
| Precision | 0.694 | 0.827 | 0.777 | 0.777 | 0.789 | 0.790 | |
| F1-score | 0.663 | 0.722 | 0.736 | 0.766 | 0.734 | 0.768 | |
| MCC | 0.363 | 0.526 | 0.504 | 0.542 | 0.511 | 0.555 | |
| 5.879 × 10 | 5.711 × 10 | 5.552 × 10 | 5.402 × 10 | 2.849 × 10 | 5.126 × 10 |
A Comparison on the performance of deep learning models built based on retinal images.
| Type of Images | DL Model | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | f1 Score | MCC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cropped images | DenseNet-121 | 0.756 | 0.753 | 0.758 | 0.74 | 0.746 | 0.511 | 2.023 × 10 |
| Resnet-18 | 0.694 | 0.735 | 0.656 | 0.661 | 0.696 | 0.392 | 1.732 × 10 | |
| ResNet-34 | 0.753 | 0.682 | 0.817 | 0.773 | 0.725 | 0.505 | 8.824 × 10 | |
| VGGNet-11 | 0.744 | 0.712 | 0.774 | 0.742 | 0.727 | 0.487 | 5.529 × 10 | |
| VGGNet-16 | 0.739 | 0.7 | 0.774 | 0.739 | 0.719 | 0.476 | 4.612 × 10 | |
| AlexNet | 0.699 | 0.659 | 0.737 | 0.696 | 0.677 | 0.397 | 3.519 × 10 | |
| SqueezeNet1_0 | 0.719 | 0.665 | 0.769 | 0.724 | 0.693 | 0.436 | 3.130 × 10 | |
| SqueezeNet1_1 | 0.685 | 0.729 | 0.645 | 0.653 | 0.689 | 0.375 | 6.687 × 10 | |
| Mean subtracted images | DenseNet-121 | 0.73 | 0.712 | 0.747 | 0.72 | 0.716 | 0.459 | 3.545 × 10 |
| Resnet-18 | 0.713 | 0.682 | 0.742 | 0.707 | 0.695 | 0.425 | 1.953 × 10 | |
| ResNet 34 | 0.713 | 0.635 | 0.785 | 0.73 | 0.679 | 0.426 | 6.846 × 10 | |
| VGGNet-11 | 0.685 | 0.735 | 0.64 | 0.651 | 0.691 | 0.376 | 5.984 × 10 | |
| VGGNet-16 | 0.725 | 0.724 | 0.726 | 0.707 | 0.715 | 0.449 | 3.542 × 10 | |
| AlexNet | 0.683 | 0.688 | 0.677 | 0.661 | 0.674 | 0.365 | 2.806 × 10 | |
| SqueezeNet1_0 | 0.677 | 0.635 | 0.715 | 0.671 | 0.653 | 0.352 | 2.390 × 10 | |
| SqueezeNet1_1 | 0.669 | 0.612 | 0.72 | 0.667 | 0.638 | 0.334 | 1.390 × 10 |
A comparison on the performance of hybrid models built based on both retinal image and DXA data.
| Type of Images | DL Model | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | f 1 Score | MCC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cropped images | DenseNet-121 + DXA | 0.74 | 0.688 | 0.793 | 0.771 | 0.719 | 0.492 | 1.371 × 10 |
| ResNet-18 + DXA | 0.756 | 0.666 | 0.842 | 0.802 | 0.725 | 0.519 | 1.255 × 10 | |
| ResNet-34 + DXA | 0.783 | 0.747 | 0.816 | 0.793 | 0.767 | 0.566 | 1.290 × 10 | |
| VGGNet-11 + DXA | 0.752 | 0.691 | 0.812 | 0.784 | 0.729 | 0.512 | 1.297 × 10 | |
| VGGNet-16 + DXA | 0.739 | 0.675 | 0.8 | 0.773 | 0.71 | 0.49 | 1.608 × 10 | |
| AlexNet + DXA | 0.778 | 0.698 | 0.854 | 0.815 | 0.751 | 0.559 | 1.166 × 10 | |
| SqueezeNet1_0 + DXA | 0.748 | 0.653 | 0.836 | 0.786 | 0.713 | 0.498 | 3.795 × 10 | |
| SqueezeNet1_1 + DXA | 0.767 | 0.736 | 0.795 | 0.773 | 0.753 | 0.534 | 1.243 × 10 | |
| Mean subtracted images | DenseNet-121 + DXA | 0.736 | 0.669 | 0.8 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.475 | 1.409 × 10 |
| ResNet-18 + DXA | 0.734 | 0.639 | 0.825 | 0.775 | 0.699 | 0.474 | 1.355 × 10 | |
| ResNet-34 + DXA | 0.757 | 0.755 | 0.761 | 0.754 | 0.75 | 0.52 | 1.173 × 10 | |
| VGGNet-11 + DXA | 0.734 | 0.707 | 0.760 | 0.737 | 0.715 | 0.474 | 1.323 × 10 | |
| VGGNet-16 + DXA | 0.723 | 0.702 | 0.746 | 0.727 | 0.705 | 0.456 | 1.608 × 10 | |
| AlexNet + DXA | 0.753 | 0.658 | 0.841 | 0.796 | 0.718 | 0.511 | 1.466 × 10 | |
| SqueezeNet1_0 + DXA | 0.754 | 0.673 | 0.829 | 0.789 | 0.725 | 0.511 | 1.241 × 10 | |
| SqueezeNet1_1 + DXA | 0.770 | 0.732 | 0.804 | 0.780 | 0.754 | 0.540 | 1.464 × 10 |
Figure 5Performance of the hybrid models on gender-stratified participants (based on cropped image).
Details of number of participants and number of images used for each age group.
| Class | Age Group (18–39) | Age Group (40 and Above) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| CVD | 115 | 440 | 118 | 434 |
| Control | 210 | 782 | 40 | 140 |
Figure 6Performance of the hybrid models on age-stratified participants (based on cropped image).
Figure 7Few retinal images from CVD group with overlaid GradCAM. Red-ish color indicates higher influence on the decision of prediction model compared to the blue-ish color that indicate less influence.