4.3 Article

Automatic Grading System for Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnosis Using Deep Learning Artificial Intelligence Software

期刊

CURRENT EYE RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 12, 页码 1550-1555

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2020.1764975

关键词

Diabetic retinopathy; deep learning; artificial intelligence; diagnosis; fundus photographs

资金

  1. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [16DZ0501100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purposes: To describe the development and validation of an artificial intelligence-based, deep learning algorithm (DeepDR) for the detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in retinal fundus photographs. Methods: Five hundred fundus images, which had detailed labelling of DR lesions, were transmitted to be analysed, including localization of the optic disk and macular, vessel segmentation, detection of lesions, and grading of DR. The multi-level iterative method of convolutional neural network and the strategy of enhanced learning were used to improve the accuracy of the system (DeepDR) for grading DR. Three public data sets were used to further train the software. The final grading results were tested based on the fundus images provided by the hospitals. Results: For 6788 fundus images (both macular and disc centred) of two Hospital Eye Center, the detection of microaneurysm, haemorrhage and hard exudates had an accuracy of 99.7%, 98.4% and 98.1%, respectively. The current algorithm accuracy was 0.96. Another 20,000 fundus images from community screening were selected, and 7593 photos of poor quality were excluded according to quality standards. Accuracy for accurate staging of fundus photos: accuracy was 0.9179. The sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were 80.58%, 95.77% and 0.9327, respectively. Conclusions: This artificial intelligence-based DeepDR can be used with high accuracy for the detection of DR in retinal images. This technology offers the potential to increase the efficiency and accessibility of DR screening programs.

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

4.3
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