4.6 Article

The Segmentation of Retinal Layer and Fluid in SD-OCT Images Using Mutex Dice Loss Based Fully Convolutional Networks

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 60929-60939

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983818

关键词

Diabetic macular edema (DME); retinal layer segmentation; fully convolutional network; mutex dice loss

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61672542]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University [2018zzts566]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) is a non-invasive imaging modality for assessing retinal diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy (DR), which is one of the most prevalent diseases responsible for visual impairment and blindness in the world. The main manifestations of DR are retinal deformation and fluid masses, termed diabetic macular edema (DME), which is the primary biomarker for assessing and diagnosing diseases. In the clinic, ophthalmologists can manually segment retinal layers and fluids to get quantitative and diagnostic information, which is the basement of the final diagnosis. However, this manual segmentation is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To facilitate and promote it, researchers have proposed many automated methods, where most of them usually ignore the priorities in ophthalmology and just regard this task as a standard semantic segmentation task. In this study, we consider the priority of the mutex relationship among different layers and introduce it into the dice loss function to build a novel one, named mutex dice loss (MDL). Besides, we propose a novel fully convolutional network based on our proposed depth max pooling (DMP) to segment retinal layers and fluids in SD-OCT images. Experimental results of the proposed method on two public datasets demonstrate promising performance, which also shows the potential to help ophthalmologists in the diagnostic process of DR or other related diseases.

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