RETINAL TELANGIECTASIA ASSOCIATED WITH OPTIC DISK PIT MACULOPATHY

2019 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Sneha Padidam ◽  
Marie T. Burke ◽  
Aleksey Mishulin ◽  
Mashal Akhter ◽  
Gary W. Abrams
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Pedro Furtado

Image structures are segmented automatically using deep learning (DL) for analysis and processing. The three most popular base loss functions are cross entropy (crossE), intersect-over-the-union (IoU), and dice. Which should be used, is it useful to consider simple variations, such as modifying formula coefficients? How do characteristics of different image structures influence scores? Taking three different medical image segmentation problems (segmentation of organs in magnetic resonance images (MRI), liver in computer tomography images (CT) and diabetic retinopathy lesions in eye fundus images (EFI)), we quantify loss functions and variations, as well as segmentation scores of different targets. We first describe the limitations of metrics, since loss is a metric, then we describe and test alternatives. Experimentally, we observed that DeeplabV3 outperforms UNet and fully convolutional network (FCN) in all datasets. Dice scored 1 to 6 percentage points (pp) higher than cross entropy over all datasets, IoU improved 0 to 3 pp. Varying formula coefficients improved scores, but the best choices depend on the dataset: compared to crossE, different false positive vs. false negative weights improved MRI by 12 pp, and assigning zero weight to background improved EFI by 6 pp. Multiclass segmentation scored higher than n-uniclass segmentation in MRI by 8 pp. EFI lesions score low compared to more constant structures (e.g., optic disk or even organs), but loss modifications improve those scores significantly 6 to 9 pp. Our conclusions are that dice is best, it is worth assigning 0 weight to class background and to test different weights on false positives and false negatives.


Retina ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 2419-2427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat Karacorlu ◽  
Isil Sayman Muslubas ◽  
Mumin Hocaoglu ◽  
Hakan Ozdemir ◽  
Serra Arf ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parul Ichhpujani ◽  
Savleen Kaur ◽  
Sushmita Kaushik ◽  
Surinder Singh Pandav

1993 ◽  
Vol 206 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Zehetmayer ◽  
Rupert Menapace

2015 ◽  
Vol 99 (9) ◽  
pp. 1220-1223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Galvez-Ruiz ◽  
Sahar M Elkhamary ◽  
Nasira Asghar ◽  
Thomas M Bosley

2003 ◽  
Vol 135 (5) ◽  
pp. 706-708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. McCulley ◽  
Byron L. Lam ◽  
Swaraj Bose ◽  
William J. Feuer
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Vol 136 (5) ◽  
pp. 888-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven L Mansberger ◽  
Linda M Zangwill ◽  
Pamela A Sample ◽  
Dongseok Choi ◽  
Robert N Weinreb

Author(s):  
Barrett N. Thompson ◽  
Garrett C. Nix ◽  
Lauren C. Ditta ◽  
Mary E. Hoehn ◽  
Natalie C. Kerr

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document