GPU-implementation (Ciresan et al., 2011a) of
MPCNNs (max-pooling convolutional neural net-
works – MPCNNs) was described, extending earlier
work on MPCNNs and on early GPU-based CNNs
without max-pooling. GPU didn’t make some fun-
damental enhancement in DNN, but faster training
on bigger datasets allows getting better results in
some reasonable time. A GPU implementation
(Ciresan et al., 2011b) accelerates the training time
by a factor of 50.
Our method is inspired by work of Ciresan et al.
(2012) where they – in a similar problem of seg-
menting neuronal membranes in electron microsco-
py images – use deep neural network as a pixel clas-
sifier. They use the same approach in mitosis detec-
tion in breast cancer histology images which won
the competition (IPAL, TRIBVN, Pitié-Salpêtrière
Hospital, The Ohio State University n.d.).
The main contribution of this paper is demon-
strating the high effectiveness of the deep learning
approach to the segmentation of blood vessels in
fundus images. We tested our results on publicly
available dataset DRIVE (Staal et al., 2004).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In
Related work we describe the state-of-the-art and
give a brief overview of applied methods and their
results. In section Methods we describe the proposed
method of retinal blood vessel segmentation. Then
follows a review of obtained results. In conclusion
we give an overview of plans for future work which
would lead to enhancements.
2 RELATED WORK
A large number of algorithms and techniques have
been published relating to the segmentation of reti-
nal blood vessels. These developments have been
documented and described in a number of review
papers (Bühler et al., 2004; Faust et al., 2012; Felkel
et al., 2001; Fraz et al., 2012, 2012; Kirbas and
Quek, 2004; Winder et al., 2009).
In this section we will give a brief overview of
various methodologies. It is out of the scope of this
paper to give detailed description of all algorithms
and discuss advantages and disadvantages of all of
them, but some current trends and discussion will be
given to outline main problems and some future
directions. There are many works where algorithms
were evaluated on the DRIVE database and, as we
tested our methods on that database, it is illustrating
to see previous results and which methods dominat-
ed and how much neural networks are represented.
A common categorization of algorithms for
segmentation of vessel-like structures in medical
images (Kirbas and Quek, 2004) includes image
driven techniques (such as edge-based and region-
based approaches), pattern recognition techniques,
model-based approaches, tracking-based approaches
and neural network based approaches. Similarly Fraz
et al. (2012) in their overview divide techniques into
six main categories: pattern recognition techniques,
matched filtering, vessel tracking/tracing, mathemat-
ical morphology, multiscale approaches (Lindeberg,
1998; Magnier et al., 2014), model based approaches
and parallel/hardware based approaches.
Many articles in which supervised methods are
used have been published to date. The most preva-
lent approach in these articles has been matched
filtering. The performance of algorithms based on
supervised classification is better in general than on
unsupervised. Almost all articles using supervised
methods report AUCs of approximately 0.95. How-
ever, these methods do not work very well on the
images with non uniform illumination as they pro-
duce false detection in some images on the border of
the optic disc, hemorrhages and other types of pa-
thologies that present strong contrast. Many im-
provements and modifications have been proposed
since the introduction of the Gaussian matched filter.
The matched filtering alone cannot handle vessel
segmentation in pathological retinal images; there-
fore it is often employed in combination with other
image processing techniques. Some results show that
Gabor Wavelets are very useful in retinal image
analysis. Also it can be seen that neural networks are
not a very common approach (Fraz et al., 2012).
The problem in comparing experimental results
could be in non uniform performance metrics which
authors obtain for their results. Some papers de-
scribe the performance in terms of accuracy and area
under receiver operating characteristic (ROC)
whereas other articles choose sensitivity and speci-
ficity for reporting the performance.
In Fraz et al. survey (2012) algorithms achieve
average accuracy in range of 0.8773 to 0.9597 and
AUC from 0.8984 to 0.961. Detailed results can be
seen in Fraz et al. (2012).
3 METHODS
We use a DNN, or more specifically convolutional
neural networks (CNNs) which instead of subsam-
pling or down-sampling layers have a max-pooling
layer (MPCNNs).
MPCNNs consist of a sequence of convolutional
(denoted C), max-pooling (denoted MP) and fully
VISAPP2015-InternationalConferenceonComputerVisionTheoryandApplications
578