January 2025
·
5 Reads
International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology
Over the years, researchers have been using deep learning in different fields of science including disease diagnosis. Retinal vessel segmentation has seen significant advancements through deep learning techniques, resulting in high accuracy. Despite this progress, challenges remain in automating the segmentation process. One of the most pressing and often overlooked issues is computational complexity, which is critical for developing portable diagnostic systems. To address this, this study introduces a CBAM‐Attention Gate‐based U‐Netmodel aimed at reducing computational complexity without sacrificing performance on evaluation metrics. The performance of the model was analyzed using four publicly available fundus image datasets: CHASE_DB1, DRIVE, STARE, and HRF, and it achieved sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, AUC, and MCC performances (0.7909, 0.9975, 0.9723, 0.9867, and 0.8011), (0.8217, 0.9816, 0.9674, 0.9849, and 0.9778), (0.8346, 0.9790, 0.9680, 0.9855, and 0.7810), and (0.8082, 0.9769, 0.9638, 0.9723, and 0.7575), respectively. Moreover, this model comprises of only 0.8 million parameters, which makes it one of the lightest available models used for retinal vessel segmentation. This lightweight yet efficient model is most suitable for use in low‐end hardware devices. The attributes of significantly lower computational complexity along with improved evaluation metrics advocates for its deployment in portable embedded devices to be used for population‐level screening programs.























![Figure 1. Graphical and actual models of cone and disk [41]](http://web-wp.archive.org/web/20250126000343im_/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387513533/figure/fig1/AS:11431281300439941@1735539172139/Graphical-and-actual-models-of-cone-and-disk-41_Q320.jpg)






![Figure 1. Graphical and actual models of cone and disk [41]](http://web-wp.archive.org/web/20250126000343im_/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387444294/figure/fig1/AS:11431281300096443@1735284248877/Graphical-and-actual-models-of-cone-and-disk-41_Q320.jpg)


















![Throughput versus α\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document} for QPSK modulation](http://web-wp.archive.org/web/20250126000343im_/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387094321/figure/fig4/AS:11431281303281689@1736823950626/Throughput-versus-adocumentclass12ptminimal-usepackageamsmath_Q320.jpg)






![Throughput for harvesting duration ζ=0.5\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\zeta =0.5$$\end{document} and optimal ζ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\zeta $$\end{document} for QPSK modulation](http://web-wp.archive.org/web/20250126000343im_/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386509149/figure/fig5/AS:11431281295416476@1733540723673/Throughput-for-harvesting-duration-z05documentclass12ptminimal_Q320.jpg)











