| Literature DB >> 36156729 |
Philippe Valmaggia1,2,3, Philipp Friedli4, Beat Hörmann4, Pascal Kaiser4, Hendrik P N Scholl2,3, Philippe C Cattin1, Robin Sandkühler1, Peter M Maloca2,3,5.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of automated segmentation of pigmented choroidal lesions (PCLs) in optical coherence tomography (OCT) data and compare the performance of different deep neural networks.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36156729 PMCID: PMC9526362 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.9.25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.048
Figure 1.Manual annotation process for PCL segmentation in volumetric OCT data. (a) Outline of the PCL in a single B-scan. (b) Filling of the outline to generate a highlighted PCL. (c) Binary label creation through clearing of the background. (d) Assemblage of the binary labels for each B-scan in the volume produced a 3D label of the PCL.
Neural Network Configuration Parameters for the 2D and 3D Neural Networks
| Neural Network | nnU-Net2D | MD-GRU | V-Net | nnU-Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dimensionality | 2D | 3D | 3D | 3D |
| Iterations | 250’000 | 50’000 | 30’000 | 250’000 |
| K-folds | 5 | 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Batch size | 50 | 1 | 5 | 2 |
| Window size | 512 × 128 | 40 × 100 × 50 | 128 × 128 × 128 | 64 × 288 × 128 |
| Foreground oversampling (%) | 33 | 50 | 50 | 33 |
| Rotation | X | X | X | |
| Mirroring | X | X | X | X |
| Rescale | X | X | X | |
| Elastic deformation | X | X | X | |
| Gaussian noise | X | X | X | |
| Gaussian blur | X | X | ||
| Gamma correction | X | X | ||
| Low contrast simulation | X | X | ||
| Optimizer | SGD with Nesterov | Adadelta | Adam | SGD with Nesterov |
| Initial learning rate | 0.01 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.01 |
| Descent parameters | Momentum 0.99 | Rho 0.9 | β1 0.9, β2 0.99 | Momentum 0.99 |
MD-GRU, multi-dimensional gated recurrent units; V-Net, volumetric net; nnU-Net, no-new-net; SGD, stochastic gradient descent.
Figure 2.Image processing pipeline for PCL segmentation. (a) OCT data with their corresponding labels were loaded into different deep neural networks (MD-GRU, V-Net, and nnU-Net). (b) Training and testing of the neural networks were performed using k-fold cross-validation with training from scratch for each fold. (c) The resulting lesion predictions are displayed in blue, red, green, and yellow according to each neural network.
Evaluation Parameters for the 2D and 3D Neural Networks
| nnU-Net2D | MD-GRU | V-Net | nnU-Net | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neural Network | Mean ± SD | Vol | Mean ± SD | Vol | Mean ± SD | Vol | Mean ± SD | Vol |
| TP | 5749 ± 18427 | 121 | 7873 ± 23550 | 121 | 7217 ± 20327 | 121 | 9087 ± 24846 | 121 |
| TN | 16238846 ± 47561 | 121 | 16232177 ± 56644 | 121 | 16230628 ± 61766 | 121 | 16236763 ± 50671 | 121 |
| FP | 866 ± 2541 | 121 | 7535 ± 25007 | 121 | 9084 ± 34105 | 121 | 2949 ± 11083 | 121 |
| FN | 7467 ± 31243 | 121 | 5343 ± 26746 | 121 | 5999 ± 30822 | 121 | 4129 ± 25702 | 121 |
| Tot pos label | 13216 ± 46305 | 121 | 13216 ± 46305 | 121 | 13216 ± 46305 | 121 | 13216 ± 46305 | 121 |
| Tot pos prediction | 6615 ± 20217 | 121 | 15408 ± 38250 | 121 | 16301 ± 44519 | 121 | 12036 ± 31158 | 121 |
| Accuracy | 0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 | 0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 | 0.999 ± 0.003 | 121 | >0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 |
| Recall | 0.438 ± 0.276 | 21 | 0.599 ± 0.305 | 21 | 0.611 ± 0.252 | 21 | 0.773 ± 0.222 | 21 |
| Specificity | >0.999 ± 0.000 | 121 | >0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 | 0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 | >0.999 ± 0.001 | 121 |
| Precision | 0.687 ± 0.319 | 23 | 0.318 ± 0.385 | 41 | 0.134 ± 0.298 | 102 | 0.588 ± 0.383 | 27 |
| NPV | >0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 | >0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 | >0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 | >0.999 ± 0.002 | 121 |
| FP rate | 0 ± 0.000 | 121 | 0 ± 0.002 | 121 | 0.001 ± 0.002 | 121 | 0 ± 0.001 | 121 |
| FN rate | 0.562 ± 0.276 | 21 | 0.401 ± 0.305 | 21 | 0.389 ± 0.252 | 21 | 0.227 ± 0.222 | 21 |
| False discovery rate | 0.313 ± 0.319 | 23 | 0.682 ± 0.385 | 41 | 0.866 ± 0.298 | 102 | 0.412 ± 0.383 | 27 |
| False omission rate | 0 ± 0.002 | 121 | 0 ± 0.002 | 121 | 0 ± 0.002 | 121 | 0 ± 0.002 | 121 |
| Dice | 0.547 ± 0.253 | 20 | 0.622 ± 0.230 | 19 | 0.593 ± 0.238 | 20 | 0.779 ± 0.129 | 20 |
| HDmax [µm] | 1011 ± 892 | 20 | 1542 ± 1169 | 19 | 2408 ± 1060 | 21 | 315 ± 172 | 20 |
| HD95 [µm] | 593 ± 702 | 20 | 953 ± 1083 | 19 | 1176 ± 1147 | 21 | 153 ± 95 | 20 |
FN, false negative; FP, false positive; HDmax, maximal Hausdorff distance; HD95, 95th percentile of the Hausdorff distance; NPV, negative predictive value; SD, standard deviation; Tot pos, total number of positives; TP, true positive; TN, true negative; Vol, number of volumes (=eyes).
Values of >0.999 indicate that the rounding with precision of three digits would be 1.
Figure 3.Visualisations of the neural network predictions with overlays on the OCT images and the manual annotations. (a) Volume-rendered retinal and choroidal compartments. (b) Three-dimensional manual annotations and model predictions. (c) Two-dimensional OCT images and predictions as overlays. (d) Enlarged 2D manual annotations and predictions as overlays.
Figure 4.Example automated PCL segmentations generated using 3D nnU-Net. PCL predictions are shown as a green overlay, and manual annotations in are shown in white. (a, d, g) Volume rendered retinal and choroidal compartments. Predicted PCL with corresponding Dice coefficient and maximum Hausdorff distance. (b, e, h) 3D predictions overlaid over the manual annotations. (c, f, i) Enlarged 2D manual annotations with overlaid predictions. Axial stretching was performed for a better visualization according to isometric pixels.