Estimating Uncertainty of Geographic Atrophy Segmentations with Bayesian Deep Learning

To apply methods for quantifying uncertainty of deep learning segmentation of geographic atrophy (GA). Retrospective analysis of OCT images and model comparison. One hundred twenty-six eyes from 87 participants with GA in the SWAGGER cohort of the Nonexudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration Imaged...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ophthalmology science (Online) 2025-01, Vol.5 (1), p.100587, Article 100587
Hauptverfasser: Spaide, Theodore, Rajesh, Anand E., Gim, Nayoon, Blazes, Marian, Lee, Cecilia S., Macivannan, Niranchana, Lee, Gary, Lewis, Warren, Salehi, Ali, de Sisternes, Luis, Herrera, Gissel, Shen, Mengxi, Gregori, Giovanni, Rosenfeld, Philip J., Pramil, Varsha, Waheed, Nadia, Wu, Yue, Zhang, Qinqin, Lee, Aaron Y.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To apply methods for quantifying uncertainty of deep learning segmentation of geographic atrophy (GA). Retrospective analysis of OCT images and model comparison. One hundred twenty-six eyes from 87 participants with GA in the SWAGGER cohort of the Nonexudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration Imaged with Swept-Source OCT (SS-OCT) study. The manual segmentations of GA lesions were conducted on structural subretinal pigment epithelium en face images from the SS-OCT images. Models were developed for 2 approximate Bayesian deep learning techniques, Monte Carlo dropout and ensemble, to assess the uncertainty of GA semantic segmentation and compared to a traditional deep learning model. Model performance (Dice score) was compared. Uncertainty was calculated using the formula for Shannon Entropy. The output of both Bayesian technique models showed a greater number of pixels with high entropy than the standard model. Dice scores for the Monte Carlo dropout method (0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.87–0.93) and the ensemble method (0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.85–0.91) were significantly higher (P 
ISSN:2666-9145
2666-9145
DOI:10.1016/j.xops.2024.100587