Deep Learning Image Analysis of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Measured Vessel Density Improves Classification of Healthy and Glaucoma Eyes.
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare convolutional neural network (CNN) analysis of en face vessel density images to gradient boosting classifier (GBC) analysis of instrument-provided, feature-based optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) vessel density measurements and OCT retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measurements for classifying healthy and glaucomatous eyes.
DESIGN
Comparison of diagnostic approaches.
METHODS
A total of 130 eyes of 80 healthy individuals and 275 eyes of 185 glaucoma patients with optic nerve head (ONH) OCTA and OCT imaging were included. Classification performance of a VGG16 CNN trained and tested on entire en face 4.5 × 4.5-mm radial peripapillary capillary OCTA ONH images was compared to the performance of separate GBC models trained and tested on standard OCTA and OCT measurements. Five-fold cross-validation was used to test predictions for CNNs and GBCs. Areas under the precision recall curves (AUPRC) were calculated to control for training/test set size imbalance and were compared.
RESULTS
Adjusted AUPRCs for GBC models were 0.89 (95% CI = 0.82, 0.92) for whole image vessel density GBC, 0.89 (0.83, 0.92) for whole image capillary density GBC, 0.91 (0.88, 0.93) for combined whole image vessel and whole image capillary density GBC, and 0.93 (0.91, 095) for RNFL thickness GBC. The adjusted AUPRC using CNN analysis of en face vessel density images was 0.97 (0.95, 0.99) resulting in significantly improved classification compared to GBC OCTA-based results and GBC OCT-based results (P ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons).
CONCLUSION
Deep learning en face image analysis improves on feature-based GBC models for classifying healthy and glaucoma eyes.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.