4.3 Article

Machine learning approach to automatic exudate detection in retinal images from diabetic patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF MODERN OPTICS
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 124-135

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09500340903118517

Keywords

exudate; diabetic retinopathy; naive Bayes classifier; support vector machine; nearest neighbour classifier

Categories

Funding

  1. Thailand National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC)
  2. Thailand Research Fund [MRG4780209]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exudates are among the preliminary signs of diabetic retinopathy, a major cause of vision loss in diabetic patients. Early detection of exudates could improve patients' chances to avoid blindness. In this paper, we present a series of experiments on feature selection and exudates classification using naive Bayes and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers. We first fit the naive Bayes model to a training set consisting of 15 features extracted from each of 115,867 positive examples of exudate pixels and an equal number of negative examples. We then perform feature selection on the naive Bayes model, repeatedly removing features from the classifier, one by one, until classification performance stops improving. To find the best SVM, we begin with the best feature set from the naive Bayes classifier, and repeatedly add the previously-removed features to the classifier. For each combination of features, we perform a grid search to determine the best combination of hyperparameters nu ( tolerance for training errors) and gamma ( radial basis function width). We compare the best naive Bayes and SVM classifiers to a baseline nearest neighbour (NN) classifier using the best feature sets from both classifiers. We find that the naive Bayes and SVM classifiers perform better than the NN classifier. The overall best sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy are 92.28%, 98.52%, 53.05%, and 98.41%, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available