Cargando…

A comparison of deep learning U-Net architectures for posterior segment OCT retinal layer segmentation

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 segmenta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kugelman, Jason, Allman, Joseph, Read, Scott A., Vincent, Stephen J., Tong, Janelle, Kalloniatis, Michael, Chen, Fred K., Collins, Michael J., Alonso-Caneiro, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9437058/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36050364
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18646-2
_version_ 1784781510162776064
author Kugelman, Jason
Allman, Joseph
Read, Scott A.
Vincent, Stephen J.
Tong, Janelle
Kalloniatis, Michael
Chen, Fred K.
Collins, Michael J.
Alonso-Caneiro, David
author_facet Kugelman, Jason
Allman, Joseph
Read, Scott A.
Vincent, Stephen J.
Tong, Janelle
Kalloniatis, Michael
Chen, Fred K.
Collins, Michael J.
Alonso-Caneiro, David
author_sort Kugelman, Jason
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9437058
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94370582022-09-03 A comparison of deep learning U-Net architectures for posterior segment OCT retinal layer segmentation Kugelman, Jason Allman, Joseph Read, Scott A. Vincent, Stephen J. Tong, Janelle Kalloniatis, Michael Chen, Fred K. Collins, Michael J. Alonso-Caneiro, David Sci Rep Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9437058/ /pubmed/36050364 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18646-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Kugelman, Jason
Allman, Joseph
Read, Scott A.
Vincent, Stephen J.
Tong, Janelle
Kalloniatis, Michael
Chen, Fred K.
Collins, Michael J.
Alonso-Caneiro, David
A comparison of deep learning U-Net architectures for posterior segment OCT retinal layer segmentation
title A comparison of deep learning U-Net architectures for posterior segment OCT retinal layer segmentation
title_full A comparison of deep learning U-Net architectures for posterior segment OCT retinal layer segmentation
title_fullStr A comparison of deep learning U-Net architectures for posterior segment OCT retinal layer segmentation
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of deep learning U-Net architectures for posterior segment OCT retinal layer segmentation
title_short A comparison of deep learning U-Net architectures for posterior segment OCT retinal layer segmentation
title_sort comparison of deep learning u-net architectures for posterior segment oct retinal layer segmentation
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9437058/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36050364
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18646-2
work_keys_str_mv AT kugelmanjason acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT allmanjoseph acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT readscotta acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT vincentstephenj acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT tongjanelle acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT kalloniatismichael acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT chenfredk acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT collinsmichaelj acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT alonsocaneirodavid acomparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT kugelmanjason comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT allmanjoseph comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT readscotta comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT vincentstephenj comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT tongjanelle comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT kalloniatismichael comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT chenfredk comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT collinsmichaelj comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation
AT alonsocaneirodavid comparisonofdeeplearningunetarchitecturesforposteriorsegmentoctretinallayersegmentation