| Literature DB >> 35966243 |
Qiaoyu Li1, Xiao-Rong Zhu2,3, Guangmin Sun1, Lin Zhang2,3, Meilong Zhu1, Tian Tian1, Chenyu Guo1, Sarah Mazhar1, Jin-Kui Yang2,3, Yu Li1.
Abstract
Objective: As an extension of optical coherence tomography (OCT), optical coherence tomographic angiography (OCTA) provides information on the blood flow status at the microlevel and is sensitive to changes in the fundus vessels. However, due to the distinct imaging mechanism of OCTA, existing models, which are primarily used for analyzing fundus images, do not work well on OCTA images. Effectively extracting and analyzing the information in OCTA images remains challenging. To this end, a deep learning framework that fuses multilevel information in OCTA images is proposed in this study. The effectiveness of the proposed model was demonstrated in the task of diabetic retinopathy (DR) classification. Method: First, a U-Net-based segmentation model was proposed to label the boundaries of large retinal vessels and the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) in OCTA images. Then, we designed an isolated concatenated block (ICB) structure to extract and fuse information from the original OCTA images and segmentation results at different fusion levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35966243 PMCID: PMC9371870 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4316507
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Examples of the OCTA image and the mask image. (a) OCTA image. (b) Mask image of (i) the main vessels (surrounding area) and (ii) the FAZ (center).
Figure 2The segmentation model in this study based on the U-Net architecture.
Figure 3The process of obtaining a merged image with an OCTA image and a labeled image by channel concatenation.
Figure 4The CNN model used in this paper. (a) The total architecture, which consists of convolutional blocks and identity residual blocks in the convolution process. (b) The identity residual block. (c) The convolutional block.
The segmentation accuracy and IOU for every class using our model.
| Class | Accuracy | IOU |
|---|---|---|
| Background | 93.2% | 92.6% |
| Vessels | 93.8% | 54.1% |
| FAZ | 92.3% | 84.6% |
| Average | 93.1% | 77.1% |
Examples of segmentation results.
| Case | OCTA image | Label | Segmentation result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 |
|
|
|
| Case 2 |
|
|
|
| Case 3 |
|
|
|
The ablation experiment results of our classification model.
| Input | Model | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| Segmentation results | Concatenated convolution (ResNet50) | 75.2% (95%CI ± 7.5%) |
| Isolated convolution | 78.9% (95%CI ± 4.6%) | |
| Isolated and concatenated convolution | 80.6% (95%CI ± 2%) | |
|
| ||
| OCTA images | Concatenated convolution (ResNet50) | 77.6% (95%CI ± 6.2%) |
| Isolated convolution | 84.4% (95%CI ± 2.7%) | |
| Isolated and concatenated convolution | 87.8% (95%CI ± 3.1%) | |
|
| ||
| Merged images | Concatenated convolution (ResNet50) | 79.6% (95%CI ± 3.6%) |
| Isolated convolution | 84.7% (95%CI ± 2.0%) | |
| Isolated and concatenated convolution | 88.1% (95%CI ± 3.6%) | |
The classification results of several CNN models.
| Model | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| EfficientNet | 83.7% (95%CI ± 1.5%) | 13.0% (95%CI ± 13.1%) | 99.6% (95%CI ± 0.8%) |
| MobileNet v2 | 81.6% (95%CI ± 1.0%) | 3.7% (95%CI ± 4.6%) | 99.2% (95%CI ± 13.1%) |
| ResNet50 | 79.6% (95%CI ± 3.6%) | 20.4% (95%CI ± 19.8%) | 93.7% (95%CI ± 8.0%) |
| ShuffleNet v2 | 82.0% (95%CI ± 1.2%) | 24.1% (95%CI ± 19.0%) | 95.0% (95%CI ± 4.6%) |
| SqueezeNet | 82.7% (95%CI ± 1.4%) | 13.0% (95%CI ± 11.8%) | 98.3% (95%CI ± 1.6%) |
| Ours | 88.1% (95%CI ± 3.6%) | 51.8% (95%CI ± 13.4%) | 96.3% (95%CI ± 2.8%) |
Figure 5The ROC curves and AUCs of several CNN models.
Figure 6Examples of the visualization results.
The classification results on another OCTA dataset.
| Model | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| EfficientNet | 68.2% (95%CI ± 5.3%) | 56.7% (95%CI ± 21.0%) | 64.8% (95%CI ± 12.7%) |
| MobileNet v2 | 66.2% (95%CI ± 5.2%) | 68.9% (95%CI ± 24.0%) | 53.7% (95%CI ± 22.0%) |
| ResNet50 | 75.8% (95%CI ± 2.7%) | 62.2% (95%CI ± 16.1%) | 69.4% (95%CI ± 25.3%) |
| ShuffleNet v2 | 73.8% (95%CI ± 3.3%) | 62.2% (95%CI ± 30.1%) | 71.3% (95%CI ± 16.0%) |
| SqueezeNet | 57.0% (95%CI ± 5.0%) | 0.9% (95%CI ± 17.4%) | 98.2% (95%CI ± 3.6%) |
| Ours | 76.0% (95%CI ± 5.8%) | 76.2% (95%CI ± 11.8%) | 75.9% (95%CI ± 14.3%) |