It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Deep learning methods have enabled a fast, accurate and automated approach for retinal layer segmentation in posterior segment OCT images. Due to the success of semantic segmentation methods adopting the U-Net, a wide range of variants and improvements have been developed and applied to OCT segmentation. Unfortunately, the relative performance of these methods is difficult to ascertain for OCT retinal layer segmentation due to a lack of comprehensive comparative studies, and a lack of proper matching between networks in previous comparisons, as well as the use of different OCT datasets between studies. In this paper, a detailed and unbiased comparison is performed between eight U-Net architecture variants across four different OCT datasets from a range of different populations, ocular pathologies, acquisition parameters, instruments and segmentation tasks. The U-Net architecture variants evaluated include some which have not been previously explored for OCT segmentation. Using the Dice coefficient to evaluate segmentation performance, minimal differences were noted between most of the tested architectures across the four datasets. Using an extra convolutional layer per pooling block gave a small improvement in segmentation performance for all architectures across all four datasets. This finding highlights the importance of careful architecture comparison (e.g. ensuring networks are matched using an equivalent number of layers) to obtain a true and unbiased performance assessment of fully semantic models. Overall, this study demonstrates that the vanilla U-Net is sufficient for OCT retinal layer segmentation and that state-of-the-art methods and other architectural changes are potentially unnecessary for this particular task, especially given the associated increased complexity and slower speed for the marginal performance gains observed. Given the U-Net model and its variants represent one of the most commonly applied image segmentation methods, the consistent findings across several datasets here are likely to translate to many other OCT datasets and studies. This will provide significant value by saving time and cost in experimentation and model development as well as reduced inference time in practice by selecting simpler models.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Contact Lens and Visual Optics Laboratory, Centre for Vision and Eye Research, School of Optometry and Vision Science, Kelvin Grove, Australia (GRID:grid.1024.7) (ISNI:0000000089150953)
2 University of New South Wales (UNSW), Centre for Eye Health, Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.1005.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 4902 0432); UNSW, School of Optometry and Vision Science, Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.1005.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 4902 0432)
3 The University of Western Australia, Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), Perth, Australia (GRID:grid.1012.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7910); Royal Perth Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Perth, Australia (GRID:grid.416195.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0453 3875); University of Melbourne, Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, East Melbourne, Australia (GRID:grid.1008.9) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 088X)
4 Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Contact Lens and Visual Optics Laboratory, Centre for Vision and Eye Research, School of Optometry and Vision Science, Kelvin Grove, Australia (GRID:grid.1024.7) (ISNI:0000000089150953); The University of Western Australia, Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (Incorporating Lions Eye Institute), Perth, Australia (GRID:grid.1012.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7910)