Impact of loss function in Deep Learning methods for accurate retinal vessel segmentation

TL;DR

This study systematically evaluates how different loss functions affect deep learning-based retinal vessel segmentation, revealing that loss choice significantly impacts model performance across various architectures and metrics.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of loss functions for retinal vessel segmentation using multiple architectures and metrics, highlighting the importance of loss selection.

Findings

Combo loss with SA-UNet achieved highest dice score and AUC.

Nested U-Net with Dice loss minimized Hausdorff distance.

Loss function choice significantly influences segmentation performance.

Abstract

The retinal vessel network studied through fundus images contributes to the diagnosis of multiple diseases not only found in the eye. The segmentation of this system may help the specialized task of analyzing these images by assisting in the quantification of morphological characteristics. Due to its relevance, several Deep Learning-based architectures have been tested for tackling this problem automatically. However, the impact of loss function selection on the segmentation of the intricate retinal blood vessel system hasn't been systematically evaluated. In this work, we present the comparison of the loss functions Binary Cross Entropy, Dice, Tversky, and Combo loss using the deep learning architectures (i.e. U-Net, Attention U-Net, and Nested UNet) with the DRIVE dataset. Their performance is assessed using four metrics: the AUC, the mean squared error, the dice score, and the Hausdorff distance. The models were trained with the same number of parameters and epochs. Using dice score and AUC, the best combination was SA-UNet with Combo loss, which had an average of 0.9442 and 0.809 respectively. The best average of Hausdorff distance and mean square error were obtained using the Nested U-Net with the Dice loss function, which had an average of 6.32 and 0.0241 respectively. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the selection of loss function