Optic Disc and Optic Cup Segmentation Methodologies for Glaucoma Image Detection: A Survey

Table 3

Performance results for the optic disc segmentation.

Authors	Year	Database	Sensitivity	Average overlapping	Overlap error	Success rates (Acc)	Computation time (s)
Lupaşcu et al. [29]	2008	DRIVE				95% localization; 70% identification of OD	60
Youssif et al. [17]	2008	DRIVE; STARE				100% localization; 98.77% localization	210
Zhu and Rangayyan [30]	2008	DRIVE; STARE				92.5%; 40.24%	N/A
Welfer et al. [31]	2010	DRIVE; DIARETDB1				100%; 97.7%	1083
Aquino et al. [32]	2010	MESSIDOR				99% localization; 86% segmentation	1.67; 5.69
Yin et al. [34]	2011	ORIGA			11.3%		N/A
Cheng et al. [35]	2011	ORIGA			10%		N/A
Lu [36]	2011	MESSIDOR; ARIA; STARE				98.77% detection; 97.5% detection, 91.7% segmentation; 99.75% detection, 93.4% segmentation	5
Tjandrasa et al. [33]	2012	DRIVE				75.56%	N/A
Fraga et al. [39]	2012	VARIA				100% localization; 93.36% segmentation	0.6
Dehghani et al. [37]	2012	DRIVE; STARE; Local				100%; 91%; 98.9%	27.6
Zhang et al. [38]	2012	DRIVE; Self-selection; STARE; DIARETDB0; DIARETDB1				100%; 97.5%; 91.4%; 95.5%; 92.1%	13.2
Sinha and Babu [40]	2012	DIARETDB0; DIARETDB1; DRIVE				96.9%; 100%; 95%	3.8
Kumar and Sinha [28]	2013	MESSIDOR; DIARETDB0	93%	0.895			90