ArticlePloS one2016
The Evonik-Mainz Eye Care-Study (EMECS): Development of an Expert System for Glaucoma Risk Detection in a Working Population.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glaucoma screening in Kazakhstan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop an expert system for glaucoma screening in a working population based on a human expert procedure using images of optic nerve head (ONH), visual field (frequency doubling technology, FDT) and intraocular pressure (IOP).
methods4167 of 13037 (32%) employees between 40 and 65 years of Evonik Industries were screened. An experienced glaucoma expert (JW) assessed papilla parameters and evaluated all individual screening results. His classification into "no glaucoma", "possible glaucoma" and "probable glaucoma" was defined as "gold standard". A screening model was developed which was tested versus the gold-standard. This model took into account the assessment of the ONH. Values and relationships of CDR and IOP and the FDT were considered additionally and a glaucoma score was generated. The structure of the screening model was specified a priori whereas values of the parameters were chosen post-hoc to optimize sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm. Simple screening models based on IOP and / or FDT were investigated for comparison.
results111 persons (2.66%) were classified as glaucoma suspects, thereof 13 (0.31%) as probable and 98 (2.35%) as possible glaucoma suspects by the expert. Re-evaluation by the screening model revealed a sensitivity of 83.8% and a specificity of 99.6% for all glaucoma suspects. The positive predictive value of the model was 80.2%, the negative predictive value 99.6%. Simple screening models showed insufficient diagnostic accuracy.
conclusionAdjustment of ONH and symmetry parameters with respect to excavation and IOP in an expert system produced sufficiently satisfying diagnostic accuracy. This screening model seems to be applicable in such a working population with relatively low age and low glaucoma prevalence. Different experts should validate the model in different populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.