4.5 Article

A Deep Learning Approach for Meibomian Gland Atrophy Evaluation in Meibography Images

期刊

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.8.6.37

关键词

meibography; meibomian gland dysfunction; atrophy; medical image segmentation; deep learning

资金

  1. UCB-CRC
  2. Roberta Smith Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To develop a deep learning approach to digitally segmenting meibomian gland atrophy area and computing percent atrophy in meibography images. Methods: A total of 706 meibography images with corresponding meiboscores were collected and annotated for each one with eyelid and atrophy regions. The dataset was then divided into the development and evaluation sets. The development set was used to train and tune the deep learning model, while the evaluation set was used to evaluate the performance of the model. Results: Four hundred ninety-seven meibography images were used for training and tuning the deep learning model while the remaining 209 images were used for evaluations. The algorithm achieves 95.6% meiboscore grading accuracy on average, largely outperforming the lead clinical investigator (LCI) by 16.0% and the clinical team by 40.6%. Our algorithm also achieves 97.6% and 95.4% accuracy for eyelid and atrophy segmentations, respectively, as well as 95.5% and 66.7% mean intersection over union accuracies (mean IU), respectively. The average root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of the percent atrophy prediction is 6.7%. Conclusions: The proposed deep learning approach can automatically segment the total eyelid and meibomian gland atrophy regions, as well as compute percent atrophy with high accuracy and consistency. This provides quantitative information of the gland atrophy severity based on meibography images. Translational Relevance: Based on deep neural networks, the study presents an accurate and consistent gland atrophy evaluation method for meibography images, and may contribute to improved understanding of meibomian gland dysfunction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据