Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32293466›Full record

SynthesisBiomedical engineering online2020

Machine learning applied to retinal image processing for glaucoma detection: review and perspective.

Daniele M S Barros, Julio C C Moura, Cefas R Freire, Alexandre C Taleb, Ricardo A M Valentim, Philippi S G Morais

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biomedical engineering online, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Robust PCA withJournal of imaging · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniele M S BarrosLaboratory of Technological Innovation in Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil. daniele.barros@lais.huol.ufrn.br.
Julio C C MouraLaboratory of Technological Innovation in Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil.
Cefas R FreireLaboratory of Technological Innovation in Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil.
Alexandre C TalebFederal University of Goias, Goiania, Brazil.
Ricardo A M ValentimLaboratory of Technological Innovation in Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil.
Philippi S G MoraisLaboratory of Technological Innovation in Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte · BRUniversidade Federal de Goiás · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis is a systematic review on the main algorithms using machine learning (ML) in retinal image processing for glaucoma diagnosis and detection. ML has proven to be a significant tool for the development of computer aided technology. Furthermore, secondary research has been widely conducted over the years for ophthalmologists. Such aspects indicate the importance of ML in the context of retinal image processing.

methodsThe publications that were chosen to compose this review were gathered from Scopus, PubMed, IEEEXplore and Science Direct databases. Then, the papers published between 2014 and 2019 were selected . Researches that used the segmented optic disc method were excluded. Moreover, only the methods which applied the classification process were considered. The systematic analysis was performed in such studies and, thereupon, the results were summarized. DISCUSSION: Based on architectures used for ML in retinal image processing, some studies applied feature extraction and dimensionality reduction to detect and isolate important parts of the analyzed image. Differently, other works utilized a deep convolutional network. Based on the evaluated researches, the main difference between the architectures is the number of images demanded for processing and the high computational cost required to use deep learning techniques.

conclusionsAll the analyzed publications indicated it was possible to develop an automated system for glaucoma diagnosis. The disease severity and its high occurrence rates justify the researches which have been carried out. Recent computational techniques, such as deep learning, have shown to be promising technologies in fundus imaging. Although such a technique requires an extensive database and high computational costs, the studies show that the data augmentation and transfer learning techniques have been applied as an alternative way to optimize and reduce networks training.

Indexed as

Machine LearningGlaucomaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedRetinaClassificationDeep learningGlaucomaMachine learningRetinal image processing

Identifiers

PMID32293466
PMCPMC7160894
OpenAlexW3015420973

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.