Ceren Durmaz Engin, Ufuk Beşenk, Denizcan Özizmirliler, Mustafa Alper Selver
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Automated vs. Expert-Designed Machine Learning Models in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Detection and Classification.","authors":"Ceren Durmaz Engin, Ufuk Beşenk, Denizcan Özizmirliler, Mustafa Alper Selver","doi":"10.4274/tjo.galenos.2025.74780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of expert-designed machine learning models and code-free automated machine learning (AutoML) models in classifying optical coherence tomography (OCT) images for detecting age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and distinguishing between its dry and wet forms.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Custom models were developed by an artificial intelligence expert using the EfficientNet V2 architecture, while AutoML models were created by an ophthalmologist utilizing LobeAI with transfer learning via ResNet-50 V2. Both models were designed to differentiate normal OCT images from AMD and to also distinguish between dry and wet AMD. The models were trained and tested using an 80:20 split, with each diagnostic group containing 500 OCT images. Performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and F1 scores, were calculated and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The expert-designed model achieved an overall accuracy of 99.67% for classifying all images, with F1 scores of 0.99 or higher across all binary class comparisons. In contrast, the AutoML model achieved an overall accuracy of 89.00%, with F1 scores ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 in binary comparisons. Notably lower recall was observed for dry AMD vs. normal (0.85) in the AutoML model, indicating challenges in correctly identifying dry AMD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the AutoML models demonstrated acceptable performance in identifying and classifying AMD cases, the expert-designed models significantly outperformed them. The use of advanced neural network architectures and rigorous optimization in the expert-developed models underscores the continued necessity of expert involvement in the development of high-precision diagnostic tools for medical image classification.</p>","PeriodicalId":23373,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"55 3","pages":"120-126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12192190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/tjo.galenos.2025.74780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of expert-designed machine learning models and code-free automated machine learning (AutoML) models in classifying optical coherence tomography (OCT) images for detecting age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and distinguishing between its dry and wet forms.
Materials and methods: Custom models were developed by an artificial intelligence expert using the EfficientNet V2 architecture, while AutoML models were created by an ophthalmologist utilizing LobeAI with transfer learning via ResNet-50 V2. Both models were designed to differentiate normal OCT images from AMD and to also distinguish between dry and wet AMD. The models were trained and tested using an 80:20 split, with each diagnostic group containing 500 OCT images. Performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and F1 scores, were calculated and compared.
Results: The expert-designed model achieved an overall accuracy of 99.67% for classifying all images, with F1 scores of 0.99 or higher across all binary class comparisons. In contrast, the AutoML model achieved an overall accuracy of 89.00%, with F1 scores ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 in binary comparisons. Notably lower recall was observed for dry AMD vs. normal (0.85) in the AutoML model, indicating challenges in correctly identifying dry AMD.
Conclusion: While the AutoML models demonstrated acceptable performance in identifying and classifying AMD cases, the expert-designed models significantly outperformed them. The use of advanced neural network architectures and rigorous optimization in the expert-developed models underscores the continued necessity of expert involvement in the development of high-precision diagnostic tools for medical image classification.
期刊介绍:
The Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology (TJO) is the only scientific periodical publication of the Turkish Ophthalmological Association and has been published since January 1929. In its early years, the journal was published in Turkish and French. Although there were temporary interruptions in the publication of the journal due to various challenges, the Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology has been published continually from 1971 to the present. The target audience includes specialists and physicians in training in ophthalmology in all relevant disciplines.