Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31057684›Full record

ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019

Development of Predictive Models in Patients with Epiphora Using Lacrimal Scintigraphy and Machine Learning.

Yong-Jin Park, Ji Hoon Bae, Mu Heon Shin, Seung Hyup Hyun, Young Seok Cho, Yearn Seong Choe, Joon Young Choi, Kyung-Han Lee, Byung-Tae Kim, Seung Hwan Moon

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Artificial intelligence in cornea and ocular surface diseases.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yong-Jin ParkDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Ji Hoon BaeDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Mu Heon ShinDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Seung Hyup HyunDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Young Seok ChoDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Yearn Seong ChoeDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Joon Young ChoiDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Kyung-Han LeeDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Byung-Tae KimDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.
Seung Hwan MoonDepartments of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50, Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710 South Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4302-1920
Samsung Medical Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe developed predictive models using different programming languages and different computing platforms for machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) that classify clinical diagnoses in patients with epiphora. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of these models.

methodsBetween January 2016 and September 2017, 250 patients with epiphora who underwent dacryocystography (DCG) and lacrimal scintigraphy (LS) were included in the study. We developed five different predictive models using ML tools, Python-based TensorFlow, R, and Microsoft Azure Machine Learning Studio (MAMLS). A total of 27 clinical characteristics and parameters including variables related to epiphora (VE) and variables related to dacryocystography (VDCG) were used as input data. Apart from this, we developed two predictive convolutional neural network (CNN) models for diagnosing LS images. We conducted this study using supervised learning.

resultsAmong 500 eyes of 250 patients, 59 eyes had anatomical obstruction, 338 eyes had functional obstruction, and the remaining 103 eyes were normal. For the data set that excluded VE and VDCG, the test accuracies in Python-based TensorFlow, R, multiclass logistic regression in MAMLS, multiclass neural network in MAMLS, and nuclear medicine physician were 81.70%, 80.60%, 81.70%, 73.10%, and 80.60%, respectively. The test accuracies of CNN models in three-class classification diagnosis and binary classification diagnosis were 72.00% and 77.42%, respectively.

conclusionsML-based predictive models using different programming languages and different computing platforms were useful for classifying clinical diagnoses in patients with epiphora and were similar to a clinician's diagnostic ability.

Indexed as

Convolutional neural networkDacryocystographyDeep learningEpiphoraLacrimal scintigraphyMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID31057684
PMCPMC6473022
OpenAlexW2911433794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.