| Literature DB >> 35783011 |
Yuke Ji1, Nan Chen1, Sha Liu1, Zhipeng Yan1, Hui Qian1, Shaojun Zhu2, Jie Zhang3, Minli Wang4, Qin Jiang1, Weihua Yang1.
Abstract
The eye is one of the most important organs of the human body. Eye diseases are closely related to other systemic diseases, both of which influence each other. Numerous systemic diseases lead to special clinical manifestations and complications in the eyes. Typical diseases include diabetic retinopathy, hypertensive retinopathy, thyroid associated ophthalmopathy, optic neuromyelitis, and Behcet's disease. Systemic disease-related ophthalmopathy is usually a chronic disease, and the analysis of imaging markers is helpful for a comprehensive diagnosis of these diseases. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) technology based on deep learning has rapidly developed, leading to numerous achievements and arousing widespread concern. Presently, AI technology has made significant progress in research on imaging markers of systemic disease-related ophthalmopathy; however, there are also many limitations and challenges. This article reviews the research achievements, limitations, and future prospects of AI image analysis technology in systemic disease-related ophthalmopathy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35783011 PMCID: PMC9249504 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3406890
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.464
Figure 1The basic framework of this review paper.
Summary of DR diagnosis model based on deep learning method.
| Study | Task | Sample size | AI model | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gulshan et al. [ | Identification and detection | EyePACS-1 dataset and Messidor-2 dataset | Deep learning-trained algorithm | On the EyePACS-1 dataset, the AUC value was 0.991, the sensitivity was 90.3%, and the specificity was 98.1%; on the Messidor-2 dataset, the corresponding values were 0.990, 87.0%, and 98.5%. |
|
| ||||
| Ai et al. [ | Detection | 35,126 images | DR-IIXRN | The AUC value and accuracy were 0.95 and 92%. |
|
| ||||
| Bhardwaj et al. [ | Identification and detection | The DRIVE, STARE, and DIARETDB1 datasets | InceptionResnet-V2 | The accuracy was 93.33%. |
|
| ||||
| Li et al. [ | Detection | 35201 images | Deep learning algorithm | The AUC value, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.989, 97.0%, and 91.4%, respectively |
|
| ||||
| Li et al. [ | Identification | 120002 images | The retinal artificial intelligence diagnosis system | The accuracy was 98.1%. |
Summary of HR diagnosis model based on deep learning method.
| Study | Task | Sample size | AI model | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbas et al. [ | Clinical staging diagnosis | 1400 images | DenseNet | The sensitivity was 90.5%, the specificity was 91.5%, the accuracy was 92.6%, the |
|
| ||||
| Akbar et al. [ | Detection and classification | The INSPIRE-AVR and VICAVR datasets and a local dataset | Support vector machine and radial basis function | The average accuracies of the first part were 95.10%, 95.64%, and 98.09%, respectively, and the average accuracies of the second part were 95.93% and 97.50%, respectively. |
|
| ||||
| Arsalan et al. [ | Detection | The DRIVE, CHASE-DB1, and STARE datasets | A dual-residual-stream-based vessel segmentation network | The sensitivity, specificity, AUC value, and accuracy were as follows: DRIVE: 80.22%, 98.1%, 98.2%, and 96.55%, respectively; CHASE-DB1: 82.06%, 98.41%, 98.0%, and 97.26%, respectively; and STARE: 85.26%, 97.91%, 98.83%, and 96.97%, respectively. |
|
| ||||
| Li et al. [ | Identification | 120002 images | The retinal artificial intelligence diagnosis system | The accuracy was 83.7%. |
Summary of TAO diagnosis model based on deep learning method.
| Study | Task | Sample size | AI model | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lin et al. [ | Detection | 160 MRI images of the eyes | A deep learning system based on a deep convolution neural network | The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and |
|
| ||||
| Song et al. [ | Detection and identification | 1135 orbital CT images | A ResNet-18 derived network | The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.87, 0.88, and 0.85, respectively, and the AUC value was 0.919. |
|
| ||||
| Salvi et al. [ | Classification and progression prediction | 242 patients' ophthalmic examination results | A back propagation neural network model with 17 input parameters | The classification accuracy of the model was 78.3%, and the accuracy of predicting progress was 69.2%. |
Summary of NMO diagnosis model based on deep learning method.
| Study | Task | Sample size | AI model | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huang et al. [ | Detection and identification | 116 images of magnetic resonance | A multi-parameter multivariate random forest model | In training, the accuracy of the MM-RF model was 0.849, and the AUC value was 0.826; for testing, the accuracy of the MM-RF model was 0.871, and the AUC value was 0.902. |
|
| ||||
| Hagiwara et al. [ | Detection and identification | 53 patients' examination results | SqueezeNet | The AUC value of the model is 0.859, and the accuracies of NMO and MS are 81.1% and 83.3%, respectively. |
|
| ||||
| Kim et al. [ | Detection and identification | 338 patients' images of magnetic resonance | ResNeXt | The AUC value of the model was 0.82, and the accuracy was 71.1%. |
|
| ||||
| Khoury et al. [ | Identification | 202 serum samples | A random forest classification machine learning algorithm | The sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 and 1.00. |
Summary of Behcet's disease diagnosis model based on deep learning method.
| Study | Task | Sample size | AI model | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature Working Group [ | Detection and identification | 966 patients | The machine learning method of multinomial logistic regression | The accuracy was 96.3% on the test set and 94.0% on the training set. |
| Guler and Ubeyli [ | Detection | The Doppler signals of 106 subjects | A multilayer perceptron neural network model | The accuracy was 96.43% and 93.75%, respectively. |
Figure 2AI model research flow chart.