Federated Learning for Microvasculature Segmentation and Diabetic Retinopathy Classification of OCT Data
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a federated learning framework for deep neural network-based retinal microvasculature segmentation and referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) classification using OCT and OCT angiography (OCTA). Design: Retrospective analysis of clinical OCT and OCTA scans of control participants and patients with diabetes. Participants: The 153 OCTA en face images used for microvasculature segmentation were acquired from 4 OCT instruments with fields of view ranging from 2 × 2-mm to 6 × 6-mm. The 700 eyes used for RDR classification consisted of OCTA en face images and structural OCT projections acquired from 2 commercial OCT systems. Methods: OCT angiography images used for microvasculature segmentation were delineated manually and verified by retina experts. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity was evaluated by retinal specialists and was condensed into 2 classes: non-RDR and RDR. The federated learning configuration was demonstrated via simulation using 4 clients for microvasculature segmentation and was compared with other collaborative training methods. Subsequently, federated learning was applied over multiple institutions for RDR classification and was compared with models trained and tested on data from the same institution (internal models) and different institutions (external models). Main Outcome Measures: For microvasculature segmentation, we measured the accuracy and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). For severity classification, we measured accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve, balanced accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: For both applications, federated learning achieved similar performance as internal models. Specifically, for microvasculature segmentation, the federated learning model achieved similar performance (mean DSC across all test sets, 0.793) as models trained on a fully centralized dataset (mean DSC, 0.807). For RDR classification, federated learning achieved a mean AUROC of 0.954 and 0.960; the internal models attained a mean AUROC of 0.956 and 0.973. Similar results are reflected in the other calculated evaluation metrics. Conclusions: Federated learning showed similar results to traditional deep learning in both applications of segmentation and classification, while maintaining data privacy. Evaluation metrics highlight the potential of collaborative learning for increasing domain diversity and the generalizability of models used for the classification of OCT data.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Lo et al. [16] analyzed retinal images to classify DR positive and non-DR samples using FL.
“Lo et al. [16] analyzed the retinal images to classify the DR positive and non-DR samples using the FL approach.”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Four reviewed papers [16], [18], [20], [26] used very small amounts of data: 153, 216, 370, and 180 samples respectively.
“As Table 5 shows, four papers [16], [18], [20] and [26] used very small amounts of data, their number of elements are 153, 216, 370, and 180 respectively.”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Lo et al. [16] collected a total of 153 data samples from four different sources.
“In another article, Lo et al. [16] collected a total of 153 data samples from four different sources.”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
VGG19 was used by Lo et al. [16].
“Likewise, VGG19 is a 19 layers CNN model and used by Lo et al. [16].”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Lo et al. [16] performed classification and segmentation on different datasets; for the SFU dataset, classification and segmentation accuracy were 88% and 85%, respectively, and classification accuracy for the OHSU dataset was 89%.
“Lo et al. [16] performed classification and segmentation both tasks on different datasets, the classification and segmentation accuracy for SFU dataset were 88% and 85% respectively, classification accuracy of OHSU dataset was 89%.”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
In Lo et al. [16], non-IID data is not considered.
“non-IID data”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Lo et al. [16] provided source code online.
“provided source code online.”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
In Lo et al. [16], clear discussion over the experiment procedure is not considered.
“clear dis-”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
In Lo et al. [16], the number of data samples is very small.
“Number of data samples is very”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Lo et al. [16] performed both classification and segmentation tasks using a federated learning framework.
“performed classification and”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Lo et al. [16] used VGG19 for classification and Basic FL as the federated algorithm.
“[16] | VGG19 (classification) | Basic FL”
From A systematic review on federated learning in medical image analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 105
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [20]McMahan HB, Moore E, Ramage D, et al. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data, arXiv:1602.05629 [cs.LG], 2016. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11289. · arXiv
- [23]Kairouz P, McMahan HB, Avent B, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning, arXiv:1912.04977 [cs.LG], 2019. · arXiv
- Authors
- Lo, J., Yu, T. T., Ma, D., Zang, P., Owen, J. P., Zhang, Q., Wang, R. K., Beg, M. F., Lee, A. Y., Jia, Y., & Sarunic, M. V.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Ophthalmology Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-12
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 100069
- ISSN
- 2666-9145 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9559956
- OpenAlex
- W3206468898
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 8.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Ophthalmology Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
- Compute Canada
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Keywords
- federated learning, optical coherence tomography angiography, data privacy, multi-institutional collaboration, model generalization, diabetic retinopathy severity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review