It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
In the application of deep learning on optical coherence tomography (OCT) data, it is common to train classification networks using 2D images originating from volumetric data. Given the micrometer resolution of OCT systems, consecutive images are often very similar in both visible structures and noise. Thus, an inappropriate data split can result in overlap between the training and testing sets, with a large portion of the literature overlooking this aspect. In this study, the effect of improper dataset splitting on model evaluation is demonstrated for three classification tasks using three OCT open-access datasets extensively used, Kermany’s and Srinivasan’s ophthalmology datasets, and AIIMS breast tissue dataset. Results show that the classification performance is inflated by 0.07 up to 0.43 in terms of Matthews Correlation Coefficient (accuracy: 5% to 30%) for models tested on datasets with improper splitting, highlighting the considerable effect of dataset handling on model evaluation. This study intends to raise awareness on the importance of dataset splitting given the increased research interest in implementing deep learning on OCT data.
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 Linköping University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Linköping, Sweden (GRID:grid.5640.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 9922); Linköping University, Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linköping, Sweden (GRID:grid.5640.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 9922)
2 Linköping University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Linköping, Sweden (GRID:grid.5640.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 9922); Linköping University, Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linköping, Sweden (GRID:grid.5640.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 9922); Linköping University, Division of Statistics & Machine Learning, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping, Sweden (GRID:grid.5640.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 9922)