Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 65, Issue 7
June 2024
Volume 65, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2024
Comparative analysis of training approaches for deep learning geographic atrophy segmentation models
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Gwen Musial
    Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, United States
  • Qinqin Zhang
    Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, United States
  • Ali Salehi
    Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California, United States
  • Gissel Herrera
    Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Mengxi Shen
    Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Giovanni Gregori
    Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Philip J Rosenfeld
    Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Yuxuan Cheng
    Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
  • Ruikang K Wang
    Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Gwen Musial Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Code E (Employment); Qinqin Zhang Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Code E (Employment); Ali Salehi Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Code E (Employment); Gissel Herrera None; Mengxi Shen None; Giovanni Gregori Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Code R (Recipient); Philip Rosenfeld Annexon, Apellis, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Chengdu Kanghong Biotech, InflammX, Ocudyne, Regeneron, Unity Biotechnology, Code C (Consultant/Contractor), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Gyroscope Therapeutics, Code F (Financial Support), Apellis, Ocudyne, InflammX, Valitor, Verana Health, Code I (Personal Financial Interest); Yuxuan Cheng None; Ruikang Wang Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Code C (Consultant/Contractor), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Code R (Recipient)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2024, Vol.65, 2384. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Gwen Musial, Qinqin Zhang, Ali Salehi, Gissel Herrera, Mengxi Shen, Giovanni Gregori, Philip J Rosenfeld, Yuxuan Cheng, Ruikang K Wang; Comparative analysis of training approaches for deep learning geographic atrophy segmentation models. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2024;65(7):2384.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Deep learning (DL) models have been used for geographic atrophy (GA) segmentation in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) en face images. To understand the impact of variations in DL models and training datasets on GA segmentation, we compared two DL models trained on spectral domain (SD) and swept-source (SS) OCT/OCTA images.

Methods : The DL model from University of Washington (UW)[1] was trained on SS-OCTA en face images from 153 GA eyes and 90 non-GA eyes using both 6x6 mm scans and 12x12 mm scans obtained on PLEX® Elite 9000 SS-OCT (ZEISS, Dublin, CA), and SD-OCTA scans of 40 GA eyes with a 6x6 mm scan pattern on CIRRUS® 5000 (ZEISS, Dublin, CA). The DL model from ZEISS [2] was trained on SS-OCTA en face images from 173 GA eyes and 21 non-GA eyes with both 6x6 mm scans and 12x12 mm scans obtained on PLEX Elite 9000 and transfer learning [3] was applied to a dataset of SD-OCT scans from 150 GA eyes and 24 non-GA eyes with Macular cube 512x128 and 200x200 CIRRUS 5000 scans. 20 GA eyes with SD-OCTA 6x6 mm scan and SS-OCTA 6x6 mm scans formed the testing dataset for model performance evaluation. All GA lesions were manually annotated (MA) from the subretinal pigment epithelium using the same method for both DL models. GA area was calculated for MA and both DL models. Similarities of MA and DL outputs were compared with the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). An ANOVA test was run to compare mean areas and a paired t-test was used to compare DSC scores.

Results : No significant difference was found in GA area between MA and both DL models for either SD or SS-OCTA images (p > 0.05). In SD-OCTA images, the DSC (+/- SD) between MA and the UW model was 0.88 ± 0.08 and between MA and the ZEISS model was 0.83 ± 0.16. In SS-OCTA images, the DSC between MA and the UW model was 0.77 ± 0.32 and between the MA and ZEISS model was 0.88 ± 0.12. There was no significant difference between the DSC of the two DL models for either SD or SS-OCTA images (p >0.05).

Conclusions : DL models with varying proportions of SD-OCT and SS-OCT images in the training dataset and different model architectures can both successfully segment GA lesions, showing the robustness of DL models trained for GA segmentation.

References:
1. Chu Z et al. BioOptExp 2022. PMID: 35414972.
2. Pramil V et al. Retina 2023. PMID: 35970318.
3. Zhang Q et al. IOVS 2023. 64(8):1109.

This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×