ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Performance Evaluation of Different Object Detection Models for the Segmentation of Optical Cups and Discs.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational methods in glaucoma research: Current status and future outlook.Molecular aspects of medicine · 2023Review
- Parkinson's Disease Diagnosis Using Laplacian Score, Gaussian Process Regression and Self-Organizing Maps.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- An Analysis of Deep Learning Models in SSVEP-Based BCI: A Survey.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Integration of natural and deep artificial cognitive models in medical images: BERT-based NER and relation extraction for electronic medical records.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Mask R-CNN based multiclass segmentation model for endotracheal intubation using video laryngoscope.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.