Deep Learning based Retinal OCT Segmentation
M. Pekala‹ , N. Joshi‹ , D.E. Freund‹ , N. M. Bressler:,
D. Cabrera DeBuc; , and P. Burlina‹
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel MD
Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD
;
Bascom Palmer Eye Institute,
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami FL
‹

arXiv:1801.09749v1 [cs.CV] 29 Jan 2018

:

Abstract. Objective
To evaluate the eﬃcacy of methods that use deep learning (DL) for the
automatic ﬁne-grained segmentation of optical coherence tomography
(OCT) images of the retina.
Methods
OCT images from 10 patients with mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy were used from a public (U. of Miami) dataset. For each patient, ﬁve
images were available: one image of the fovea center, two images of the
perifovea, and two images of the parafovea. For each image, two expert
graders each manually annotated ﬁve retinal surfaces (i.e. boundaries between pairs of retinal layers). The ﬁrst grader’s annotations were used
as ground truth and the second grader’s annotations to compute interoperator agreement. The proposed automated approach segments images
using fully convolutional networks (FCNs) together with Gaussian process (GP)-based regression as a post-processing step to improve the quality of the estimates. Using 10-fold cross validation, the performance of
the algorithms is determined by computing the per-pixel unsigned error
(distance) between the automated estimates and the ground truth annotations generated by the ﬁrst manual grader. We compare the proposed
method against ﬁve state of the art automatic segmentation techniques.
Results
The results show that the proposed methods compare favorably with
state of the art techniques, resulting in the smallest mean unsigned error
values and associated standard deviations, and performance is comparable with human annotation of retinal layers from OCT when there is
only mild retinopathy.
Conclusions
The results suggest that semantic segmentation using FCNs, coupled
with regression-based post-processing, can eﬀectively solve the OCT segmentation problem on par with human capabilities with mild retinopathy.

Keywords: Fully convolutional networks, Gaussian process regression, OCT
segmentation

2

1

Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length

Introduction

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an important retinal imaging modality
as it is a non-invasive, high-resolution imaging technique capable of capturing
micron-scale structure within the human retina. The retina is organized into
layers (e.g. see ﬁgure 1 in [1]) and abnormalities in this structure have been
associated with ophthalmic, neurodegenerative and vascular disorders. One such
example is age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a retinal condition that is
among the leading causes of blindness and visual impairment. For individuals
over 50 years of age in the United States, if left untreated, it is the leading cause
of irreversible central vision loss [2–4]. Studies have shown that advanced AMD
lesions correlate with thinning of the outer retina in geographic atrophy as well
as overlying choroidal neovascularization [5].
As a part of the central nervous system (CNS), the retina is also subject
to a number of specialized immune responses similar to those in the brain and
spinal cord; changes in the retinal structure have been associated with CNS disorders such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s
disease. In particular, thinning of the retinal nerve ﬁber layer (RNFL) is often
associated with the aforementioned disorders and, in some cases, its thickness
correlates directly with the progression of neurological impairment [6]. Furthermore, ocular manifestations of CNS disorders can sometimes precede symptoms
within the brain itself, while thickening of the retina with cystoid abnormalities
or subretinal ﬂuid represents one of the most common causes of vision impairment, i.e., retinal pathology from macular edema as a result of diabetes or retinal
vein occlusions. Since the retinal structure can be imaged relatively easily via
OCT, automated retinal analysis using OCT provides a compelling complement
to traditional CNS detection methodologies. Currently, commercial OCT devices
provide a map to describe the retinal thickness, typically between the surface of
the retina and the retinal pigment epithelial layer of the retina. However, these
measurements may not fully incorporate the data available on OCT regarding
retinal pathology.
Work in automated retinal image analysis (ARIA) has steadily progressed
in the past two decades, as datasets have become more plentiful and machine
vision and machine learning techniques have become more proﬁcient (e.g. [7–12]).
This has also favorably impacted work in automatic OCT segmentation, where
most standard algorithms employ classical (e.g. graph based [13]) segmentation
techniques (see e.g. [1, 14–20] and speciﬁcally [20] for a recent review of the
practice).
Work in deep learning has had substantial impact recently on medical imaging (see examples such as [21,22]) and also ARIA, for instance to automatically
detect patients with referable age related macular degeneration from fundus images [23, 24] or OCT [25]. For OCT segmentation, some recent studies have featured the use of convolutional neural networks (ConvNets): [26] uses ConvNets
to delineate macular edema, [27] uses a cascaded U-Net like architecture [28]
and shows performance close to that of a classical approach based on random
forests, and [29] uses a hybrid ConvNets and graph based method to identify

Deep Learning based Retinal OCT Segmentation

3

OCT boundary layers. Recent eﬀorts at U. of Miami [1] have also taken steps
to develop publicly available OCT datasets with clinical gold standards for comparing performance among methods, including a number of OCT segmentation
algorithms of record.
The salient/novel features of the present work include: a new OCT segmentation method using a combination of fully convolutional networks (FCNs) based
on DenseNet and Gaussian process regression, and a performance comparison
with methods of record showing that the proposed approach performs on par
with a human annotator and compares favorably against other methods of record
when used on a publicly available dataset [1]. In particular, our method exhibits
the smallest unsigned boundary estimation errors, a result which has potential
clinical implications given that ophthalmic, neurological, and vascular disorders
have manifestations in retinal layers visible in OCT.

2
2.1

Methods
Data

For our study we utilize the publicly available U. of Miami OCT dataset [1].
This includes 50 OCT images spanning 10 diﬀerent patients with mild, nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. Each image consists of 768 ˆ 496 pixels with
transversal and axial resolutions of 11.11µm/pixel and 3.867µm/pixel. There
are ﬁve images available for each patient, which includes one image of the fovea
center, two of the perifovea, and two of the parafovea. Two expert graders each
annotated ﬁve retinal surfaces per image, where a “surface” is deﬁned as the
boundary between a pair of adjacent retinal layers. The result is a total of 250
annotated surfaces per grader. The annotated surfaces are numbered 1,2,4,6 and
11 (following the convention introduced in [1]). These surfaces and the associated
layers are described in Table 1. Also following the approach in [1], we use the
ﬁrst grader’s annotations as ground truth and the second grader’s annotations
as a measure of inter-operator agreement.
Surface ID Upper Layer
1
Pre-retinal space
2
Nerve ﬁber layer
4
Inner plexiform layer
6
Outer plexiform layer
11

Lower Layer
Nerve ﬁber layer
Ganglion cell layer
Inner nuclear layer
Henle’s Fiber layer
and Outer nuclear layer
Bruch’s complex
Choriocapillaris
Table 1. Annotated surfaces provided by dataset in [1].

4

Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length

Fig. 1. Example annotations from the dataset of [1]. The yellow lines depict the AURA
surface estimate; note the estimate does not span the entire image. Magenta lines
denote the estimates generated by human observer #1 which are used as ground truth
in this study.

2.2

Segmentation approach

Our approach for estimating retinal surfaces consists of two primary steps. The
ﬁrst step employs a classiﬁcation algorithm to identify, for each pixel, the most
likely corresponding retinal layer. These per-pixel classiﬁcation estimates are
then used as the inputs to the second step, a regression procedure which leverages
our prior knowledge that retinal surfaces can be modeled as smooth functions
that partition layers along the axial dimension.
For the retinal layer classiﬁcation step we employ a fully convolutional neural
network (FCN) based on the DenseNet [30,31] architecture. FCNs are a subcategory of ConvNets that take tensor-like data as input and produce class estimates
having the same spatial dimensions; when the inputs are images, FCNs provide
per-pixel class estimates. This is in contrast with more traditional “whole image”
classiﬁcation schemes whereby a single class estimate is produced for the entire
input. Note that, while this work only attempts to estimate the layer associated
with each pixel, the ability to generate per-pixel class estimates might also be
used to identify additional clinically relevant features or lesions in OCT images.
Many convolutional networks process data serially, in that each layer operates solely upon the output of the previous layer. The DenseNet architecture,
in contrast, permits each layer of the network to directly process the outputs
from all previous layers. This construction allows information (i.e. features) ex-

Deep Learning based Retinal OCT Segmentation

5

tracted in the early layers to propagate throughout the network without being
perturbed by the action of intermediate layers. Directly passing feature maps
from early to later layers also has beneﬁts with regard to eﬃcient training via
backpropagation. Other FCNs, such as U-Nets [28], also directly propagate a
subset of features maps; however these intra-layer connections are less abundant
relative to the DenseNet architecture. In fact, our initial experiments were based
on U-Nets; however, we empirically found the DenseNet architecture provided
superior performance in this setting.
Variations in thickness of retinal layers introduces a non-trivial amount of
class imbalance in the aforementioned classiﬁcation procedure (there are fewer
pixels corresponding to the thin, inner retinal layers). To mitigate the impact
of this class imbalance we increase the weight in the loss penalty for the pixels associated with minority classes during training by a factor of 10 (roughly
corresponding to the level of class imbalance).
At this point, one might attempt to directly extract surfaces from the layer
estimates by identifying locations where class estimates change along the axial
dimension. However, surfaces are deﬁned by a unique location for each pixel in
the transversal dimension, a constraint not explicitly enforced by the per-pixel
classiﬁcation procedure. For example, Fig. 2 shows an example classiﬁcation
output that, while fairly accurate, includes a few undesirable artifacts that may
introduce duplicate or missing surface estimates at some locations. One option
is to employ local heuristics to address these issues. In this heuristic, if the
classiﬁcation procedure generates more than one candidate for a layer at a given
location, the point which is nearest in Euclidean distance to the prior surface
is used (for surface 1, distance to surface 2 is used as the adjudication method).
Alternately, if a layer estimate is missing for any given location, an estimate
is imputed from the nearest available value for that layer. The combination
of methods employed above for segmentation and post-processing constitutes a
baseline algorithm which we term “SEG”.
An alternative to making local repairs is to explicitly use our prior knowledge
that retinal surfaces (in two-dimensional images) can be modeled as scalar-valued
functions with an appropriate level of smoothness and apply a post-processing
module that solves a regression problem for each surface. For this study we
employ Gaussian processes (GP) with a Radial Basis Function kernel for this
purpose [32]. We used a value of 50 pixels for both the variance and length scale
hyper-parameters of this kernel; this choice was based on qualitative evaluation
of the smoothness of the resulting estimates. In the future, improved performance might be obtained by formal hyper-parameter selection. With enough
data, hyper-parameters could also be tuned on a per region and/or per-surface
basis. Other regression techniques are of course possible; in addition to providing
a clean mechanism for specifying smoothness priors, GPs also have the advantage
of providing a mechanism for solving regression problems in higher dimensions
(an important consideration in settings where volumetric OCT data is available).
We term this combined FCN and GP approach “SEG+REG”.

6

Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length

Fig. 2. Example segmentation; original image (left); neural network segmentation output, before post-processing (right).

2.3

Comparison with other state of the art algorithms

In addition to OCT images and ground truth, the publicly available U. of Miami
OCT dataset [1] also includes annotations generated by ﬁve commonly used OCT
segmentation software packages and/or algorithms of record. These reference
algorithms/implementations are: Spectralis 6.0 [15], IOWA Reference Algorithm
[16], AUtomated retinal analysis tools (AURA) [17], Dufour’s (Bern) algorithm
[18], and OCTRIMA3D [19]. We refer the reader to [1] for a complete description
of these algorithms. Note that these automated annotations do not always span
the entire OCT image (e.g., see Fig. 1). Therefore, our performance evaluation
is based solely upon the subset of each image for which all algorithms produced
a valid surface estimate.
2.4

Evaluation methods and metrics

We use a K-fold cross validation (K=10) process where we use nine sets of ﬁve
images (resulting in a total of 45 images) from nine patients for training the FCN,
and testing is done on the remaining test patient’s ﬁve images. Then the patient
used for testing is rotated as is done in conventional K-fold testing approaches,
resulting in testing performed on all images. This stratiﬁcation allowed us to
train the network on representative data while ensuring that the segmented
images for a given patient were not a by-product of training on that patient’s
images. A few of the images contain regions that consist of all zero pixels; these
regions were not used during training (although they are evaluated at test time).
Following the approach in [1], we measure the accuracy of surface estimates
by computing the per-pixel diﬀerences between the estimate and the ground
truth annotations generated by the ﬁrst manual grader. Metrics calculations
are limited to the regions for which all automated algorithms in the dataset
had valid estimates (therefore excluding remote/lateral regions where artifacts
are more prevalent). We used mean unsigned errors and mean signed errors as
performance metrics for both the proposed algorithms and algorithms of record.

Deep Learning based Retinal OCT Segmentation

7

Table 2. Mean unsigned error aggregated across all eye regions. Values in bold indicate
when an algorithm meets or exceeds human performance.
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
mean
max
std

1
2
4
6
11

SEG SEG+REG Spectralis OCTRIMA AURA IOWA Bern Inter-Observer
1.13
1.10
1.09
0.95
1.35 2.03 1.71
0.87
1.14
1.06
1.45
1.18
1.19 1.74 2.77
1.14
0.95
0.92
1.92
0.99
1.12 1.79 1.60
1.10
1.23
1.19
1.19
1.52
1.54 1.51 1.72
1.29
1.06
1.02
0.99
1.20 0.96 1.22 1.24
1.12
1.10
1.06
1.33
1.17
1.23 1.66 1.81
1.10
1.23
1.19
1.92
1.52
1.54 2.03 2.77
1.29
0.10
0.10
0.37
0.23 0.22 0.30 0.57
0.15

For a given surface, the estimate vest and the corresponding ground truth vref
are both vectors (with dimension equal to the width of the evaluation region, in
pixels) and the signed error is deﬁned to be
es “ vref ´ vest ;
the unsigned error is just the absolute value of es taken component-wise.

3

Results

We report the performance of both the SEG and SEG+REG compared with
other algorithms. Table 2 reports the mean unsigned errors for each algorithm
and surface, and the average and max values across all testing data. Values in
bold font indicate when an algorithm meets or exceeds human performance (e.g.
inter-operator error). The table suggests that in aggregate the proposed methods match human performance, and perform favorably when compared to other
algorithms of record. These results also indicate particularly good performance
of the proposed methods on the inner retinal surfaces. Table 3 shows the signed
errors for the corresponding regions, from which it appears that our method
may be slightly overestimating the support of the retinal layers as evidenced by
a relatively large positive error on surface 1 and a relatively large negative error
on surface 11. Following [1] we also provide the mean unsigned error broken down
by ocular regions in Table 4 1 .

4

Discussion

We present results demonstrating that semantic segmentation using a DenseNet
fully convolutional Network coupled with a regression-based post-processing using GPs can eﬀectively address the problem of ﬁne-grained automated OCT
1

Note there is some minor diﬀerence between these results and table 5 of [1] for the
algorithms of records which may be attributed to variations in the extent of the
macular region that was evaluated; many of the automated methods tend to exhibit
greater variation towards the edges of the scans.

8

Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length
Table 3. Mean signed error across all eye regions.

surface
surface
surface
surface
surface

1
2
4
6
11

SEG SEG+REG Spectralis OCTRIMA AURA IOWA
0.90
0.89
-0.82
0.66
1.22 1.99
-0.12
-0.14
0.76
0.16 0.34 1.47
0.18
0.18
1.43
0.12
0.41 1.59
-0.30
-0.30
-0.51
-0.92 -0.51 0.78
-0.66
-0.66
-0.44
-0.94 -0.58 1.04

Bern Inter-Observer
1.65
0.26
2.53
0.29
1.30
0.29
1.13
0.09
0.90
-0.69

Table 4. Mean unsigned error for all surfaces and regions.
surface1 fovea
surface1 parafovea
surface1 perifovea
surface2 fovea
surface2 parafovea
surface2 perifovea
surface4 fovea
surface4 parafovea
surface4 perifovea
surface6 fovea
surface6 parafovea
surface6 perifovea
surface11 fovea
surface11 parafovea
surface11 perifovea
mean
max
std

SEG SEG+REG Spectralis OCTRIMA AURA IOWA Bern Inter-Observer
1.18
1.13
0.90
0.90 0.90 2.14 1.67
0.85
1.12
1.10
1.14
1.00
1.31 1.98 1.81
0.89
1.12
1.09
1.13
0.92
1.62 2.01 1.62
0.86
1.34
1.24
1.39
1.15 1.29 2.42 2.02
1.31
1.03
0.97
0.92
1.03 0.92 1.59 2.45
0.97
1.15
1.05
2.02
1.35
1.42 1.54 3.47
1.22
1.10
1.08
1.30
1.12
1.25 1.81 1.44
1.13
0.91
0.89
1.32
0.91 1.02 1.67 1.52
1.08
0.92
0.88
2.82
1.00
1.14 1.89 1.76
1.11
1.45
1.40
1.79
2.75 2.58 1.58 1.86
1.50
1.26
1.22
1.10
1.36
1.42 1.50 1.74
1.36
1.08
1.04
0.99
1.08
1.14 1.49 1.62
1.11
0.92
0.88
0.81
1.02 0.88 1.08 1.23
1.12
1.07
1.04
0.98
1.19 0.95
1.14 1.16
1.12
1.11
1.08
1.07
1.31 1.02 1.38 1.32
1.11
1.12
1.07
1.31
1.21
1.26 1.68 1.78
1.12
1.45
1.40
2.82
2.75 2.58 2.42 3.47
1.50
0.15
0.14
0.53
0.45 0.43 0.37 0.57
0.18

segmentation, a capability that has many clinical applications. The results show
that the proposed methods compare well with state of the art, resulting in the
smallest mean unsigned error values and associated standard deviations; overall, performance is comparable with human annotation. We should note however
that caution should be exercised when interpreting such strict comparisons since
the algorithms of record we compare against were developed and optimized using
datasets which may not match exactly the U. of Miami evaluation dataset used
here, in aspects such as resolution, noise characteristics, and artifacts.
In addition, the beneﬁt of using the proposed approaches are their relative
simplicity. Another advantage of the fully convolutional architectures and regression used here is that these approaches can be naturally expanded in a number
of ways, including the direct analysis of 3D volumetric data (e.g. see [33]) and
to the problem of identifying additional structures within the OCT scans, such
as drusen or other lesions.

Deep Learning based Retinal OCT Segmentation

9

As mentioned previously, in our study we also originally used FCNs based
on U-Nets and ensembles of U-Nets [28]; however, we found DenseNet provided
superior performance for this application.
We anticipate these results could be further improved with additional training data and/or a more exhaustive selection of training hyper-parameters (e.g.
weighting of minority class pixels or per-layer tuning of the downstream regression). It is also important to note that the dataset used here only represents the
mild spectrum of diabetic retinopathy. A future study with an analysis which
includes more advanced conditions would also be of value. Further studies would
be indicated with more severe retinal pathology.
Overall, the results show that deep learning and FCNs can provide a competitive approach for OCT automatic segmentation that is fully automated and
holds promise for clinical applications.

5

Conclusion

We propose novel OCT automated segmentation methods. Results suggest that
semantic segmentation using FCNs, coupled with regression-based post-processing,
can eﬀectively produce results that are on par with human capabilities and meet
or exceed the prior methods of record considered here.
Acknowledgments This work is supported by the JHU/APL Independent
Research and Development Program. We thank Dr. Jun Kong for interesting
discussions on OCT.

References
1. Jing Tian, Boglarka Varga, Erika Tatrai, Palya Fanni, Gabor Mark Somfai,
William E Smiddy, and Delia Cabrera DeBuc. Performance evaluation of automated segmentation software on optical coherence tomography volume data. Journal of biophotonics, 9(5):478–489, 2016.
2. Ronald Klein and Barbara EK Klein. The prevalence of age-related eye diseases
and visual impairment in aging: Current estimates. Investigative ophthalmology &
visual science, 54(14), 2013.
3. AC Bird, NM Bressler, SB Bressler, IH Chisholm, G Coscas, MD Davis, PTVM
De Jong, CCW Klaver, BEKlein Klein, R Klein, et al. An international classiﬁcation and grading system for age-related maculopathy and age-related macular
degeneration. Survey of ophthalmology, 39(5):367–374, 1995.
4. Neil M Bressler. Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness... JAMA, 291(15):1900–1901, 2004.
5. Glenn J Jaﬀe, Daniel F Martin, Cynthia A Toth, Ebenezer Daniel, Maureen G
Maguire, Gui-Shuang Ying, Juan E Grunwald, Jiayan Huang, Comparison of Agerelated Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials Research Group, et al. Macular
morphology and visual acuity in the comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trials. Ophthalmology, 120(9):1860–1870, 2013.

10

Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length

6. Anat London, Inbal Benhar, and Michal Schwartz. The retina as a window to the
brainâĂŤfrom eye research to cns disorders. Nature Reviews Neurology, 9(1):44–53,
2013.
7. P Burlina, DE Freund, B Dupas, and N Bressler. Automatic screening of agerelated macular degeneration and retinal abnormalities. In Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society, EMBC, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE,
pages 3962–3966. IEEE, 2011.
8. Frank G Holz, Erich C Strauss, Steﬀen Schmitz-Valckenberg, and Menno van Lookeren Campagne. Geographic atrophy: clinical features and potential therapeutic
approaches. Ophthalmology, 121(5):1079–1091, 2014.
9. Freerk G Venhuizen, Bram van Ginneken, Freekje van Asten, Mark JJP van
Grinsven, Sascha Fauser, Carel B Hoyng, Thomas Theelen, and Clara I Sánchez.
Automated staging of age-related macular degeneration using optical coherence
tomographyautomated staging of AMD in OCT. Investigative Ophthalmology &
Visual Science, 58(4):2318–2328, 2017.
10. Philippe Burlina, David E Freund, Neil Joshi, Y Wolfson, and Neil M Bressler. Detection of age-related macular degeneration via deep learning. In Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 2016 IEEE 13th International Symposium on, pages 184–188. IEEE,
2016.
11. David E Freund, Neil Bressler, and Philippe Burlina. Automated detection of
drusen in the macula. In Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, 2009. ISBI’09.
IEEE International Symposium on, pages 61–64. IEEE, 2009.
12. Albert K Feeny, Mongkol Tadarati, David E Freund, Neil M Bressler, and Philippe
Burlina. Automated segmentation of geographic atrophy of the retinal epithelium
via random forests in AREDS color fundus images. Computers in biology and
medicine, 65:124–136, 2015.
13. Radford Juang, Elliot R McVeigh, Beatrice Hoﬀmann, David Yuh, and Philippe
Burlina. Automatic segmentation of the left-ventricular cavity and atrium in 3d
ultrasound using graph cuts and the radial symmetry transform. In Biomedical
Imaging: From Nano to Macro, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on, pages
606–609. IEEE, 2011.
14. Delia Cabrera DeBuc. A review of algorithms for segmentation of retinal image
data using optical coherence tomography. In Image Segmentation. InTech, 2011.
15. Heidelberg Engineering GmbH. Spectralis HRA+OCT user manual software, 2014.
16. K Lee, MD Abramoﬀ, M Garvin, and M Sonka. The Iowa reference algorithms
(retinal image analysis lab, iowa institute for biomedical imaging, IA), 2014.
17. Andrew Lang, Aaron Carass, Matthew Hauser, Elias S Sotirchos, Peter A Calabresi,
Howard S Ying, and Jerry L Prince. Retinal layer segmentation of macular OCT
images using boundary classiﬁcation. Biomedical optics express, 4(7):1133–1152,
2013.
18. Pascal A Dufour, Lala Ceklic, Hannan Abdillahi, Simon Schroder, Sandro
De Dzanet, Ute Wolf-Schnurrbusch, and Jens Kowal. Graph-based multi-surface
segmentation of OCT data using trained hard and soft constraints. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 32(3):531–543, 2013.
19. Jing Tian, Boglárka Varga, Gábor Márk Somfai, Wen-Hsiang Lee, William E
Smiddy, and Delia Cabrera DeBuc. Real-time automatic segmentation of optical coherence tomography volume data of the macular region. PloS one, 10(8):e0133908,
2015.
20. A Breger, M Ehler, H Bogunovic, SM Waldstein, AM Philip, U Schmidt-Erfurth,
and BS Gerendas. Supervised learning and dimension reduction techniques for
quantiﬁcation of retinal ﬂuid in optical coherence tomography images. Eye, 2017.

Deep Learning based Retinal OCT Segmentation

11

21. Andre Esteva, Brett Kuprel, Roberto A Novoa, Justin Ko, Susan M Swetter, Helen M Blau, and Sebastian Thrun. Dermatologist-level classiﬁcation of skin cancer
with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639):115–118, 2017.
22. Philippe Burlina, Seth Billings, Neil Joshi, and Jemima Albayda. Automated
diagnosis of myositis from muscle ultrasound: Exploring the use of machine learning
and deep learning methods. PloS one, 12(8):e0184059, 2017.
23. Philippe Burlina, Neil Joshi, Michael Pekala, Katia Pacheco, David E Freund, and
Neil M Bressler. Automated grading of age-related macular degeneration from color
fundus images using deep convolutional neural networks. JAMA Ophtalmology,
2017.
24. Philippe Burlina, Katia D Pacheco, Neil Joshi, David E Freund, and Neil M
Bressler. Comparing humans and deep learning performance for grading AMD:
A study in using universal deep features and transfer learning for automated AMD
analysis. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 82:80–86, 2017.
25. Cecilia S Lee, Doug M Baughman, and Aaron Y Lee. Deep learning is eﬀective for
classifying normal versus age-related macular degeneration oct images. Ophthalmology Retina, 1(4):322–327, 2017.
26. Cecilia S Lee, Ariel J Tyring, Nicolaas P Deruyter, Yue Wu, Ariel Rokem, and
Aaron Y Lee. Deep-learning based, automated segmentation of macular edema in
optical coherence tomography. bioRxiv, page 135640, 2017.
27. Yufan He, Aaron Carass, Yeyi Yun, Can Zhao, Bruno M Jedynak, Sharon D
Solomon, Shiv Saidha, Peter A Calabresi, and Jerry L Prince. Towards topological correct segmentation of macular oct from cascaded fcns. In Fetal, Infant
and Ophthalmic Medical Image Analysis, pages 202–209. Springer, 2017.
28. Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical
Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 234–241. Springer,
2015.
29. Leyuan Fang, David Cunefare, Chong Wang, Robyn H Guymer, Shutao Li, and
Sina Farsiu. Automatic segmentation of nine retinal layer boundaries in OCT images of non-exudative amd patients using deep learning and graph search. Biomedical Optics Express, 8(5):2732–2744, 2017.
30. Simon Jégou, Michal Drozdzal, David Vazquez, Adriana Romero, and Yoshua Bengio. The one hundred layers tiramisu: Fully convolutional densenets for semantic
segmentation. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW),
2017 IEEE Conference on, pages 1175–1183. IEEE, 2017.
31. Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Laurens van der Maaten.
Densely connected convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.06993, 2016.
32. Carl Edward Rasmussen and Christopher KI Williams. Gaussian processes for
machine learning, volume 1. MIT press Cambridge, 2006.
33. Özgün Çiçek, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Soeren S Lienkamp, Thomas Brox, and Olaf
Ronneberger. 3d U-Net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and ComputerAssisted Intervention, pages 424–432. Springer, 2016.

