ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluating machine learning classifiers for glaucoma referral decision support in primary care settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Ensemble learning to enhance accurate identification of patients with glaucoma using electronic health records.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Applications of machine learning in glaucoma diagnosis based on tabular data: a systematic review.BMC biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Cerebrospinal fluid estradiol fluctuations during the estrous cycle and their association with intraocular pressure and optic nerve sheath diameter in dogs: a first report.Veterinary research communications · 2025Article
- Big data in visual field testing for glaucoma.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several artificial intelligence algorithms have been proposed to help diagnose glaucoma by analyzing the functional and/or structural changes in the eye. These algorithms require carefully curated datasets with access to ocular images. In the current study, we have modeled and evaluated classifiers to predict self-reported glaucoma using a single, easily obtained ocular feature (intraocular pressure (IOP)) and non-ocular features (age, gender, race, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and comorbidities). The classifiers were trained on publicly available data of 3015 subjects without a glaucoma diagnosis at the time of enrollment. 337 subjects subsequently self-reported a glaucoma diagnosis in a span of 1-12 years after enrollment. The classifiers were evaluated on the ability to identify these subjects by only using their features recorded at the time of enrollment. Support vector machine, logistic regression, and adaptive boosting performed similarly on the dataset with F1 scores of 0.31, 0.30, and 0.28, respectively. Logistic regression had the highest sensitivity at 60% with a specificity of 69%. Predictive classifiers using primarily non-ocular features have the potential to be used for identifying suspected glaucoma in non-eye care settings, including primary care. Further research into finding additional features that improve the performance of predictive classifiers is warranted.
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.