| Literature DB >> 36212950 |
Tao Jiang1, Zhou Lu1,2, Xiaojuan Hu3, Lingzhi Zeng1, Xuxiang Ma1, Jingbin Huang1, Ji Cui1, Liping Tu1, Changle Zhou4, Xinghua Yao1, Jiatuo Xu1.
Abstract
Background: Research on intelligent tongue diagnosis is a main direction in the modernization of tongue diagnosis technology. Identification of tongue shape and texture features is a difficult task for tongue diagnosis in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). This study aimed to explore the application of deep learning techniques in tongue image analyses.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36212950 PMCID: PMC9536899 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3384209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1Deep learning methods for tongue diagnosis analyses. (a) Fissured tongue image, tooth-marked tongue image, and tongue image with fissures and tooth marks; (b) CNN method of single-object detection; (c) CNN method of multi-label detection in tongue images.
Figure 2The workflow of the entire research. (a) Demonstration of the acquisition process of tongue image; (b) example samples of tongue image differentiation dataset calibrated by experts; (c) interest regions marked manually by TCM practitioners using the LabelImg software; (d) Faster R-CNN model trained by tongue images and object location of training set; (e) study on tongue image features of 3601 people undergoing medical checkup based on Faster R-CNN model.
Figure 3TFDA-1 and TDA-1 tongue diagnosis instrument. (a) Side view of TFDA-1; (b) front view of TFDA-1; (c) side view of TDA-1; (d) front view of TDA-1.
The training set.
| Tongue image categories | Training datasets | Labels |
|---|---|---|
| Fissured tongue | 1570 | 1792 |
| Tooth-marked tongue | 1386 | 2589 |
| Spotted tongue | 746 | 920 |
| Stasis tongue | 1107 | 1942 |
| Greasy coating | 1559 | 1652 |
| Peeled coating | 478 | 639 |
| Rotten coating | 96 | 132 |
| Total | 6942 | 9666 |
Notes: one tongue image can contain multiple labels.
Figure 4Faster R-CNN Model development for recognizing tongue shape and texture. (a) The workflow of Faster R-CNN; (b) the architecture of backbone feature extraction network ResNet101; (c) the accuracy and loss of model training.
Initial parameters of faster R-CNN model for training.
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Base learning rate | 0.03 |
| Weight decay | 0.0001 |
| Momentum | 0.9 |
| Gamma value | 0.1 |
| Steps | (0, 13333, 26666) |
| Max iteration | 40000 |
| Scales | 400, 500 |
| Batch size | 128 |
Tongue images object detection results based on Faster R-CNN.
| Tongue feature | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1-score (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fissured | 99.49 | 99.49 | 99.49 | 98.97 |
| Tooth-marked | 100.00 | 98.84 | 99.42 | 98.84 |
| Stasis | 99.22 | 93.43 | 96.23 | 92.75 |
| Spot | 98.73 | 84.78 | 91.22 | 83.87 |
| Greasy | 99.44 | 90.72 | 94.88 | 90.26 |
| Peel | 98.11 | 88.14 | 92.86 | 86.67 |
| Rot | 100.00 | 83.33 | 90.91 | 83.33 |
| Average | 99.28 | 91.25 | 95.00 | 90.67 |
Figure 5Examples of tongue image feature detection.
Figure 6Distribution of different tongue shape and texture features.
Comparison of tongue image features between different genders.
| Male ( | Female ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fissure (yes) | 978 (48.8%) | 516 (32.4%) | 98.475 | <0.001 |
| Tooth (yes) | 794 (39.6%) | 544 (34.1%) | 11.405 | <0.001 |
| Spot (yes) | 336 (16.7%) | 336 (21.1%) | 10.904 | 0.001 |
| Stasis (yes) | 92 (4.6%) | 267 (16.7%) | 146.223 | <0.001 |
| Greasy (yes) | 569 (53.3%) | 499 (46.7%) | 3.632 | 0.057 |
| Peel (yes) | 84 (4.2%) | 59 (3.7%) | 0.556 | 0.456 |
| Rot (yes) | 37 (1.8%) | 7 (0.4%) | 14.544 | <0.001 |
Figure 7Comparison of tongue shape and texture features of different age ranges and genders.
Comparison of tongue image features among different age ranges.
| <30 years ( | 30–39 years ( | 40–49 years ( | ≥50 years ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fissure (yes) | 299 (35.3%) | 510 (36.0%) | 382 (46.2%) | 303 (59.5%) |
| Tooth (yes) | 321 (37.9%) | 580 (40.9%) | 302 (36.6%) | 135 (26.5%) |
| Spot (yes) | 249 (29.4%) | 291 (20.5%) | 94 (11.4%) | 38 (7.5%) |
| Stasis (yes) | 81 (9.6%) | 150 (10.6%) | 92 (11.1%) | 36 (7.1%) |
| Greasy (yes) | 205 (24.2%) | 391 (27.6%) | 273 (33.1%) | 199 (39.1%) |
| Peel (yes) | 27 (3.2%) | 60 (4.2%) | 33 (4.0%) | 23 (4.5%) |
| Rot (yes) | 3 (0.4%) | 13 (0.9%) | 8 (1.0%) | 20 (3.9%) |
Note: denotes significant difference compared to < 3 0 years old group, # denotes significant difference compared to 30–39 years old group, and ▲ denotes significant difference compared to 40–49 years old group.
Top 10 weight of tongue features and diseases in medical checkups.
| Tongue feature | Disease | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Fissured tongue | Hypertension | 0.974 |
| Dyslipidemia | 0.812 | |
| Overweight | 0.799 | |
| NAFLD | 0.775 | |
|
| ||
| Tooth-marked tongue | Hypertension | 0.786 |
| Dyslipidemia | 0.649 | |
| Overweight | 0.639 | |
| NAFLD | 0.623 | |
|
| ||
| Greasy coating | Hypertension | 0.649 |
| Overweight | 0.540 | |
Figure 8Correlation analysis between tongue features and diseases based on complex network.