| Literature DB >> 35844230 |
Sanli Yi1, Gang Zhang1, Chaoxu Qian2, YunQing Lu2, Hua Zhong2, Jianfeng He1.
Abstract
Glaucoma is an optic neuropathy that leads to characteristic visual field defects. However, there is no cure for glaucoma, so the diagnosis of its severity is essential for its prevention. In this paper, we propose a multimodal classification architecture based on deep learning for the severity diagnosis of glaucoma. In this architecture, a gray scale image of the visual field is first reconstructed with a higher resolution in the preprocessing stage, and more subtle feature information is provided for glaucoma diagnosis. We then use multimodal fusion technology to integrate fundus images and gray scale images of the visual field as the input of this architecture. Finally, the inherent limitation of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) is addressed by replacing the original classifier with the proposed classifier. Our architecture is trained and tested on the datasets provided by the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, and the results show that the proposed architecture achieves superior performance for glaucoma diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: classification; computer-aided diagnosis; glaucoma; multi-layer perceptron; multimodal fusion
Year: 2022 PMID: 35844230 PMCID: PMC9277547 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.939472
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 5.152
Figure 1Diagram of proposed architecture.
Distribution of dataset.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantity | Original | 87 | 171 | 79 | 165 |
| augmented | 174 | 171 | 158 | 165 |
Figure 2Samples of different severities.
Figure 3(A) Gray scale images of visual field. (B) Ordinary gray scale units. (C) New gray scale units.
Figure 4Backbone of proposed architecture.
Figure 5Comparison of classifier structures: (A) classifier structure of CNNs; (B) our classifier structure.
Comparison of performances before and after reconstructed gray scale image.
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| SqueezeNet 1_1 | 0.772 | 0.753 | 0.690 | 0.623 | 0.772 | 0.793 | 0.779 | 0.724 | 0.652 | 0.793 |
| Vgg 19 | 0.757 | 0.749 | 0.674 | 0.613 | 0.757 | 0.882 | 0.880 | 0.842 | 0.788 | 0.882 |
| ResNet 50 | 0.797 | 0.795 | 0.729 | 0.665 | 0.797 | 0.918 | 0.918 | 0.890 | 0.849 | 0.918 |
| DenseNet 121 | 0.790 | 0.787 | 0.720 | 0.659 | 0.790 | 0.888 | 0.889 | 0.849 | 0.803 | 0.888 |
| Average | 0.779 | 0.771 | 0.703 | 0.640 | 0.779 | 0.870 | 0.866 | 0.826 | 0.773 | 0.870 |
Average = average value of above four CNNs.
Results of fundus images.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SqueezeNet 1_1 | 0.696 | 0.662 | 0.595 | 0.528 | 0.696 |
| Vgg 19 | 0.704 | 0.692 | 0.604 | 0.559 | 0.704 |
| ResNet 50 | 0.687 | 0.682 | 0.581 | 0.534 | 0.687 |
| DenseNet 121 | 0.716 | 0.707 | 0.622 | 0.559 | 0.716 |
| Average | 0.701 | 0.686 | 0.600 | 0.545 | 0.701 |
Results of multimodal fusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SqueezeNet1_1 | Class 0 | 0.948 | 0.965 | 1.0 | 0.930 | 0.909 | 0.873 | 0.896 | 0.895 | 0.931 |
| Class 1 | 0.926 | 0.866 | 0.743 | 0.990 | 0.839 | 0.792 | ||||
| Class 2 | 0.948 | 0.955 | 0.969 | 0.942 | 0.896 | 0.816 | ||||
| Class 3 | 0.970 | 0.939 | 0.879 | 1.0 | 0.935 | 0.916 | ||||
| VGG 19 | Class 0 | 0.956 | 0.970 | 1.0 | 0.940 | 0.921 | 0.890 | 0.911 | 0.910 | 0.956 |
| Class 1 | 0.948 | 0.900 | 0.800 | 1.0 | 0.889 | 0.856 | ||||
| Class 2 | 0.956 | 0.971 | 0.942 | 1.0 | 0.914 | 0.885 | ||||
| Class 3 | 0.963 | 0.924 | 0.848 | 1.0 | 0.918 | 0.894 | ||||
| ResNet 50 | Class 0 | 0.971 | 0.980 | 0.900 | 1.0 | 0.947 | 0.927 | 0.918 | 0.919 | 0.953 |
| Class 1 | 0.934 | 0.887 | 0.923 | 0.936 | 0.842 | 0.801 | ||||
| Class 2 | 0.934 | 0.963 | 0.848 | 0.978 | 0.897 | 0.848 | ||||
| Class 3 | 0.971 | 0.929 | 1.0 | 0.964 | 0.923 | 0.857 | ||||
| DenseNet 121 | Class 0 | 0.971 | 0.980 | 0.900 | 1.0 | 0.947 | 0.928 | 0.918 | 0.920 | 0.939 |
| Class 1 | 0.929 | 0.871 | 0.920 | 0.930 | 0.821 | 0.777 | ||||
| Class 2 | 0.907 | 0.963 | 0.848 | 0.936 | 0.857 | 0.788 | ||||
| Class 3 | 0.950 | 0.946 | 0.862 | 0.973 | 0.877 | 0.846 |
Ablation experiment of data augmentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SqueezeNet 1_1 | No | 0.814 | 0.811 | 0.740 | 0.689 | 0.814 |
| Yes | 0.896 | 0.895 | 0.862 | 0.812 | 0.896 | |
| Vgg 19 | No | 0.735 | 0.720 | 0.620 | 0.590 | 0.735 |
| Yes | 0.911 | 0.910 | 0.881 | 0.836 | 0.911 | |
| ResNet 50 | No | 0.762 | 0.762 | 0.663 | 0.644 | 0.762 |
| Yes | 0.918 | 0.919 | 0.889 | 0.852 | 0.918 | |
| DenseNet 121 | No | 0.812 | 0.812 | 0.736 | 0.699 | 0.812 |
| Yes | 0.918 | 0.920 | 0.889 | 0.854 | 0.918 |
Figure 6Results of four classes on confusion matrix (left) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (right) for SqueezeNet1_1, VGG 19, ResNet 50, and DenseNet 121.
Figure 7Comparison of multimodal fusion and single path.
Ablation experiment of proposed classifier.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SqueezeNet 1_1 | 0.889 | 0.890 | 0.853 | 0.811 | 0.889 |
| SqueezeNet 1_1+Classifier | 0.901 | 0.900 | 0.868 | 0.820 | 0.901 |
| Vgg 19 | 0.864 | 0.863 | 0.818 | 0.765 | 0.864 |
| Vgg 19+Classifier | 0.911 | 0.911 | 0.881 | 0.837 | 0.911 |
| ResNet 50 | 0.882 | 0.883 | 0.851 | 0.847 | 0.882 |
| ResNet 50+Classifier | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.897 | 0.862 | 0.924 |
| DenseNet 121 | 0.913 | 0.911 | 0.886 | 0.844 | 0.913 |
| DenseNet 121+Classifier | 0.939 | 0.939 | 0.917 | 0.889 | 0.939 |
Figure 8Receiver operating characteristic curves of each subcategory for 4-category classification deep CNN.
Comparison of analogous approaches.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bizios et al. ( | 0.9539 | 0.978 | – | – | – |
| Chen et al. ( | 0.9688 | 0.99 | – | 1.000 | 0.9167 |
| Liu et al. ( | – | 0.869 | – | – | – |
| Ours | 0.975 | 0.992 | 0.942 | 0.992 | 0.957 |