4.6 Article

MTNet: A combined diagnosis algorithm of vessel segmentation and diabetic retinopathy for retinal images

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278126

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a deep learning-based algorithm for automatic segmentation of retinal vessels, which achieves better segmentation results with limited dataset capacity. Based on this, a combined diagnosis algorithm for vessel segmentation and diabetic retinopathy classification of retinal images is proposed.
Medical studies have shown that the condition of human retinal vessels may reveal the physiological structure of the relationship between age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, atherosclerosis, cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, and other ophthalmic diseases and systemic diseases, and their abnormal changes often serve as a diagnostic basis for the severity of the condition. In this paper, we design and implement a deep learning-based algorithm for automatic segmentation of retinal vessel (CSP_UNet). It mainly adopts a U-shaped structure composed of an encoder and a decoder and utilizes a cross-stage local connectivity mechanism, attention mechanism, and multi-scale fusion, which can obtain better segmentation results with limited data set capacity. The experimental results show that compared with several existing classical algorithms, the proposed algorithm has the highest blood vessel intersection ratio on the dataset composed of four retinal fundus images, reaching 0.6674. Then, based on the CSP_UNet and introducing hard parameter sharing in multi-task learning, we innovatively propose a combined diagnosis algorithm vessel segmentation and diabetic retinopathy for retinal images (MTNet). The experiments show that the diagnostic accuracy of the MTNet algorithm is higher than that of the single task, with 0.4% higher vessel segmentation IoU and 5.2% higher diagnostic accuracy of diabetic retinopathy classification.

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

4.6
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