Differentiating Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy From Non-glaucomatous Optic Neuropathies Using Deep Learning Algorithms
Issued Date
2023-08-01
Resource Type
ISSN
00029394
eISSN
18791891
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85153078278
Pubmed ID
36868341
Journal Title
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume
252
Start Page
1
End Page
8
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
American Journal of Ophthalmology Vol.252 (2023) , 1-8
Suggested Citation
Vali M., Mohammadi M., Zarei N., Samadi M., Atapour-Abarghouei A., Supakontanasan W., Suwan Y., Subramanian P.S., Miller N.R., Kafieh R., Aghsaei Fard M. Differentiating Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy From Non-glaucomatous Optic Neuropathies Using Deep Learning Algorithms. American Journal of Ophthalmology Vol.252 (2023) , 1-8. 8. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2023.02.016 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/82771
Title
Differentiating Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy From Non-glaucomatous Optic Neuropathies Using Deep Learning Algorithms
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
PURPOSE: A deep learning framework to differentiate glaucomatous optic disc changes due to glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON) from non-glaucomatous optic disc changes due to non-glaucomatous optic neuropathies (NGONs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHOD: A deep-learning system was trained, validated, and externally tested to classify optic discs as normal, GON, or NGON, using 2183 digital color fundus photographs. A Single-Center data set of 1822 images (660 images of NGON, 676 images of GON, and 486 images of normal optic discs) was used for training and validation, whereas 361 photographs from 4 different data sets were used for external testing. Our algorithm removed the redundant information from the images using an optic disc segmentation (OD-SEG) network, after which we performed transfer learning with various pre-trained networks. Finally, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, and precision to show the performance of the discrimination network in the validation and independent external data set. RESULTS: For classification, the algorithm with the best performance for the Single-Center data set was DenseNet121, with a sensitivity of 95.36%, precision of 95.35%, specificity of 92.19%, and F1 score of 95.40%. For the external validation data, the sensitivity and specificity of our network for differentiating GON from NGON were 85.53% and 89.02%, respectively. The glaucoma specialist who diagnosed those cases in masked fashion had a sensitivity of 71.05% and a specificity of 82.21%. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithm for the differentiation of GON from NGON yields results that have a higher sensitivity than those of a glaucoma specialist, and its application for unseen data thus is extremely promising.