4.7 Article

Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for diabetic retinopathy screening

Journal

INFORMATION SCIENCES
Volume 501, Issue -, Pages 511-522

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.06.011

Keywords

Diabetic retinopathy; Fundus image; Deep learning; Image classification; Semantic segmentation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [61872200]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFB1003405]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin [18YFYZCG00060]
  4. Nankai University [91922299]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diabetic retinopathy (DR), the leading cause of blindness for working-age adults, is generally intervened by early screening to reduce vision loss. A series of automated deep-learning-based algorithms for DR screening have been proposed and achieved high sensitivity and specificity ( > 90%). However, these deep learning models do not perform well in clinical applications due to the limitations of the existing publicly available fundus image datasets. In order to evaluate these methods in clinical situations, we collected 13,673 fundus images from 9598 patients. These images were divided into six classes by seven graders according to image quality and DR level. Moreover, 757 images with DR were selected to annotate four types of DR-related lesions. Finally, we evaluated state-of-the-art deep learning algorithms on collected images, including image classification, semantic segmentation and object detection. Although we obtain an accuracy of 0.8284 for DR classification, these algorithms perform poorly on lesion segmentation and detection, indicating that lesion segmentation and detection are quite challenging. In summary, we are providing a new dataset named DDR for assessing deep learning models and further exploring the clinical applications, particularly for lesion recognition. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available