State-of-the-Art Periorbital Distance Prediction and Disease Classification Using Periorbital Features

📅 2024-09-27
📈 Citations: 0
Influential: 0
📄 PDF
🤖 AI Summary
Clinical assessment of periorbital distance relies on subjective manual measurements, while existing automated methods suffer from poor generalizability and high data dependency. Method: We propose an end-to-end anatomy-aware AI pipeline featuring PeriorbitAI—a domain-adaptive segmentation model outperforming SAM—integrated with a lightweight classifier and a multimodal fusion architecture, alongside a novel out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness evaluation framework. Contribution/Results: We establish periorbital distance as an interpretable and robust biomarker for ophthalmic disease classification. Our method achieves 77–80% accuracy on in-distribution (ID) data and 63–68% on OOD data—substantially surpassing CNN baselines (14%). Segmentation error remains within inter-reader variability, setting a new clinical benchmark. The pipeline delivers high accuracy, strong generalization across diverse datasets, and inherent clinical interpretability.

Technology Category

Application Category

📝 Abstract
Periorbital distances are critical markers for diagnosing and monitoring a range of oculoplastic and craniofacial conditions. Manual measurement, however, is subjective and prone to intergrader variability. Automated methods have been developed but remain limited by standardized imaging requirements, small datasets, and a narrow focus on individual measurements. We developed a segmentation pipeline trained on a domain-specific dataset of healthy eyes and compared its performance against the Segment Anything Model (SAM) and the prior benchmark, PeriorbitAI. Segmentation accuracy was evaluated across multiple disease classes and imaging conditions. We further investigated the use of predicted periorbital distances as features for disease classification under in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) settings, comparing shallow classifiers, CNNs, and fusion models. Our segmentation model achieved state-of-the-art accuracy across all datasets, with error rates within intergrader variability and superior performance relative to SAM and PeriorbitAI. In classification tasks, models trained on periorbital distances matched CNN performance on ID data (77--78% accuracy) and substantially outperformed CNNs under OOD conditions (63--68% accuracy vs. 14%). Fusion models achieved the highest ID accuracy (80%) but were sensitive to degraded CNN features under OOD shifts. Segmentation-derived periorbital distances provide robust, explainable features for disease classification and generalize better under domain shift than CNN image classifiers. These results establish a new benchmark for periorbital distance prediction and highlight the potential of anatomy-based AI pipelines for real-world deployment in oculoplastic and craniofacial care.
Problem

Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.

Automating periorbital distance measurement to reduce manual variability
Improving disease classification using periorbital features across imaging conditions
Enhancing generalization of anatomy-based AI models under domain shifts
Innovation

Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.

Segmentation pipeline trained on domain-specific dataset
Compared performance against SAM and PeriorbitAI
Used periorbital distances for disease classification
🔎 Similar Papers
No similar papers found.
G
George R. Nahass
Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States; Biomedical Engineering , University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
G
G. Yazdanpanah
Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States
M
Madison Cheung
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery , University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
A
Alex Palacios
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery , University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
J
Jeffery Peterson
Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States
K
Kevin Heinze
Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States; Ophthalmology, Cornell Medical College , New York City, New York , United States
S
Sasha Hubschman
Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States
C
Chad A. Purnell
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery , University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States; Shriners Childrens Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, United States
P
Pete Setabutr
Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States
A
Ann Q. Tran
Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States
D
Darvin Yi
Ophthalmology, University of Illinois Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States; Biomedical Engineering , University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States