Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30894178›Full record

ArticleBiomedical engineering online2019

CNNs for automatic glaucoma assessment using fundus images: an extensive validation.

Andres Diaz-Pinto, Sandra Morales, Valery Naranjo, Thomas Köhler, Jose M Mossi, Amparo Navea

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Multimodality Fusion Strategies in Eye Disease Diagnosis.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andres Diaz-PintoInstituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, I3B, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain. andiapin@upv.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4865-8296
Sandra MoralesInstituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, I3B, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Valery NaranjoInstituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, I3B, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Thomas KöhlerPattern Recognition Lab, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Jose M MossiiTEAM, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Amparo NaveaInstituto de Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera, Avenida del Seminario s/n, Moncada, 46313, Valencia, Spain.

Funding

Conselleria d'Educació, Investigació, Cultura i Esport Santiago GrisoliaHorizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Glaucoma - Advanced, LAbel-free High resolution Automated OCT Diagnostics (GALAHAD)Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España (ES) ACRIMA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost current algorithms for automatic glaucoma assessment using fundus images rely on handcrafted features based on segmentation, which are affected by the performance of the chosen segmentation method and the extracted features. Among other characteristics, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are known because of their ability to learn highly discriminative features from raw pixel intensities.

methodsIn this paper, we employed five different ImageNet-trained models (VGG16, VGG19, InceptionV3, ResNet50 and Xception) for automatic glaucoma assessment using fundus images. Results from an extensive validation using cross-validation and cross-testing strategies were compared with previous works in the literature.

resultsUsing five public databases (1707 images), an average AUC of 0.9605 with a 95% confidence interval of 95.92-97.07%, an average specificity of 0.8580 and an average sensitivity of 0.9346 were obtained after using the Xception architecture, significantly improving the performance of other state-of-the-art works. Moreover, a new clinical database, ACRIMA, has been made publicly available, containing 705 labelled images. It is composed of 396 glaucomatous images and 309 normal images, which means, the largest public database for glaucoma diagnosis. The high specificity and sensitivity obtained from the proposed approach are supported by an extensive validation using not only the cross-validation strategy but also the cross-testing validation on, to the best of the authors' knowledge, all publicly available glaucoma-labelled databases.

conclusionsThese results suggest that using ImageNet-trained models is a robust alternative for automatic glaucoma screening system. All images, CNN weights and software used to fine-tune and test the five CNNs are publicly available, which could be used as a testbed for further comparisons.

Indexed as

Fundus OculiNeural Networks, ComputerDatabases, FactualGlaucomaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedTime FactorsACRIMA databaseCNNFine-tuningFundus imagesGlaucoma

Identifiers

PMID30894178
PMCPMC6425593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.