Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36553037›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Performance Evaluation of Different Object Detection Models for the Segmentation of Optical Cups and Discs.

Gendry Alfonso-Francia, Jesus Carlos Pedraza-Ortega, Mariana Badillo-Fernández, Manuel Toledano-Ayala, Marco Antonio Aceves-Fernandez, Juvenal Rodriguez-Resendiz, Seok-Bum Ko, Saul Tovar-Arriaga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gendry Alfonso-FranciaFaculty of Engineering, Autonomous University of Querétaro, Santiago de Querétaro 76010, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-0315-1133
Jesus Carlos Pedraza-OrtegaFaculty of Engineering, Autonomous University of Querétaro, Santiago de Querétaro 76010, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-5125-8907
Mariana Badillo-FernándezInstituto Mexicano de Oftalmología (IMO) I.A.P., Circuito Exterior Estadio Corregidora sn, Centro Sur, Santiago de Querétaro 76010, Mexico.
Manuel Toledano-AyalaFaculty of Engineering, Autonomous University of Querétaro, Santiago de Querétaro 76010, Mexico.
Marco Antonio Aceves-FernandezFaculty of Engineering, Autonomous University of Querétaro, Santiago de Querétaro 76010, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-5455-0329
Juvenal Rodriguez-ResendizFaculty of Engineering, Autonomous University of Querétaro, Santiago de Querétaro 76010, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-8598-5600
Seok-Bum KoDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A9, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9287-317X
Saul Tovar-ArriagaFaculty of Engineering, Autonomous University of Querétaro, Santiago de Querétaro 76010, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-2695-1934

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glaucoma is an eye disease that gradually deteriorates vision. Much research focuses on extracting information from the optic disc and optic cup, the structure used for measuring the cup-to-disc ratio. These structures are commonly segmented with deeplearning techniques, primarily using Encoder-Decoder models, which are hard to train and time-consuming. Object detection models using convolutional neural networks can extract features from fundus retinal images with good precision. However, the superiority of one model over another for a specific task is still being determined. The main goal of our approach is to compare object detection model performance to automate segment cups and discs on fundus images. This study brings the novelty of seeing the behavior of different object detection models in the detection and segmentation of the disc and the optical cup (Mask R-CNN, MS R-CNN, CARAFE, Cascade Mask R-CNN, GCNet, SOLO, Point_Rend), evaluated on Retinal Fundus Images for Glaucoma Analysis (REFUGE), and G1020 datasets. Reported metrics were Average Precision (AP), F1-score, IoU, and AUCPR. Several models achieved the highest AP with a perfect 1.000 when the threshold for IoU was set up at 0.50 on REFUGE, and the lowest was Cascade Mask R-CNN with an AP of 0.997. On the G1020 dataset, the best model was Point_Rend with an AP of 0.956, and the worst was SOLO with 0.906. It was concluded that the methods reviewed achieved excellent performance with high precision and recall values, showing efficiency and effectiveness. The problem of how many images are needed was addressed with an initial value of 100, with excellent results. Data augmentation, multi-scale handling, and anchor box size brought improvements. The capability to translate knowledge from one database to another shows promising results too.

Indexed as

average precisionCascade Mask R-CNNglaucomainstance segmentationintersection over unionMask R-CNNobject detectionsegmentation

Identifiers

PMID36553037
PMCPMC9777130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.