ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
A Comprehensive Performance Analysis of Transfer Learning Optimization in Visual Field Defect Classification.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning framework using UAV imagery for multi-disease detection in cereal crops.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Optimizing Deep Learning Models for Climate-Related Natural Disaster Detection from UAV Images and Remote Sensing Data.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Analysis of the Effectiveness of Metaheuristic Methods on Bayesian Optimization in the Classification of Visual Field Defects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous research have demonstrated that Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models are capable of classifying visual field (VF) defects with great accuracy. In this study, we evaluated the performance of different pre-trained models (VGG-Net, MobileNet, ResNet, and DenseNet) in classifying VF defects and produced a comprehensive comparative analysis to compare the performance of different CNN models before and after hyperparameter tuning and fine-tuning. Using 32 batch sizes, 50 epochs, and ADAM as the optimizer to optimize weight, bias, and learning rate, VGG-16 obtained the highest accuracy of 97.63 percent, according to experimental findings. Subsequently, Bayesian optimization was utilized to execute automated hyperparameter tuning and automated fine-tuning layers of the pre-trained models to determine the optimal hyperparameter and fine-tuning layer for classifying many VF defect with the highest accuracy. We found that the combination of different hyperparameters and fine-tuning of the pre-trained models significantly impact the performance of deep learning models for this classification task. In addition, we also discovered that the automated selection of optimal hyperparameters and fine-tuning by Bayesian has significantly enhanced the performance of the pre-trained models. The results observed the best performance for the DenseNet-121 model with a validation accuracy of 98.46% and a test accuracy of 99.57% for the tested datasets.
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.