4.7 Article

Domain-invariant interpretable fundus image quality assessment

Journal

MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS
Volume 61, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2020.101654

Keywords

Fundus image quality assessment; Domain adaptation; Interpretability; Multi-task learning

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61872241, 61572316]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [18410750700, 17411952600, 16DZ0501100]
  3. Hong Kong Polytechnic University [P0030419, P0030929]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective and quantitative assessment of fundus image quality is essential for the diagnosis of retinal diseases. The major factors in fundus image quality assessment are image artifact, clarity, and field definition. Unfortunately, most of existing quality assessment methods focus on the quality of overall image, without interpretable quality feedback for real-time adjustment. Furthermore, these models are often sensitive to the specific imaging devices, and cannot generalize well under different imaging conditions. This paper presents a new multi-task domain adaptation framework to automatically assess fundus image quality. The proposed framework provides interpretable quality assessment with both quantitative scores and quality visualization for potential real-time image recapture with proper adjustment. In particular, the present approach can detect optic disc and fovea structures as landmarks, to assist the assessment through coarse-to-fine feature encoding. The framework also exploit semi-tied adversarial discriminative domain adaptation to make the model generalizable across different data sources. Experimental results demonstrated that the proposed algorithm outperforms different state-of-the-art approaches and achieves an area under the ROC curve of 0.9455 for the overall quality classification. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. 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