2023
DOI: 10.1007/s11042-023-14963-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A novel deep transfer learning based computerized diagnostic Systems for Multi-class imbalanced diabetic retinopathy severity classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The surge in transfer learning over the past few years can be linked to the scarcity of supervised learning options for a diverse array of practical scenarios and the abundance of pre-trained models. Several research has constructed DR models utilizing VGG16 [23,24], DenseNet [25], InceptionV3 [26], and ResNet [27]. In their study, Qian et al [28] utilized transfer learning and attention approaches to classify DR and obtained an accuracy rate of 83.2%.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The surge in transfer learning over the past few years can be linked to the scarcity of supervised learning options for a diverse array of practical scenarios and the abundance of pre-trained models. Several research has constructed DR models utilizing VGG16 [23,24], DenseNet [25], InceptionV3 [26], and ResNet [27]. In their study, Qian et al [28] utilized transfer learning and attention approaches to classify DR and obtained an accuracy rate of 83.2%.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The surge in transfer learning over the past few years can be linked to the scarcity of supervised learning options for a diverse array of practical scenarios and the abundance of pretrained models. Several research studies have constructed DR models utilizing VGG16 [23,24], DenseNet [25], InceptionV3 [26], and ResNet [27]. In their study, Qian et al [28] utilized transfer learning and attention approaches to classify DR and obtained an accuracy rate of 83.2%.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Afterwards, we compared the performance with the above eight classifiers; finally, we found the best classifier among the above three different comparison results and analyzed and summarized the experimental results. Furthermore, based on the limited literature, although general evaluation indicators, such as the classification accuracy, area under ROC (AUC), precision rate, recall rate, and F1-score [82] are commonly used to measure the performance of classification models constructed for further verification, they have different evaluation directions with different performance objectives. Thus, if there are no special requirements for a particular class, we can directly use the indicator of the classification accuracy as a representative to evaluate the built model, as accurateness is the evaluation of performance from the perspective of the overall model, and it has great value for measuring the overall evaluation results of models.…”
Section: Phase 4: Two-order In-depth Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%