Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35729796›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2022

Comparison of machine learning approaches for structure-function modeling in glaucoma.

Damon Wong, Jacqueline Chua, Inna Bujor, Rachel S Chong, Monisha E Nongpiur, Eranga N Vithana, Rahat Husain, Tin Aung, Alina Popa-Cherecheanu, Leopold Schmetterer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 4 institutions in 6 countries.

Damon WongSERI-NTU Advanced Ocular Engineering (STANCE), Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4601-9121
Jacqueline ChuaSERI-NTU Advanced Ocular Engineering (STANCE), Singapore.
Inna BujorCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Rachel S ChongSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Monisha E NongpiurSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Eranga N VithanaSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Rahat HusainSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Tin AungSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Alina Popa-CherecheanuCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Leopold SchmettererSERI-NTU Advanced Ocular Engineering (STANCE), Singapore.
Singapore National Eye Center · SGCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy · RONanyang Technological University · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate machine learning (ML) approaches for structure-function modeling to estimate visual field (VF) loss in glaucoma, models from different ML approaches were trained on optical coherence tomography thickness measurements to estimate global VF mean deviation (VF MD) and focal VF loss from 24-2 standard automated perimetry. The models were compared using mean absolute errors (MAEs). Baseline MAEs were obtained from the VF values and their means. Data of 832 eyes from 569 participants were included, with 537 Asian eyes for training, and 148 Asian and 111 Caucasian eyes set aside as the respective test sets. All ML models performed significantly better than baseline. Gradient-boosted trees (XGB) achieved the lowest MAE of 3.01 (95% CI: 2.57, 3.48) dB and 3.04 (95% CI: 2.59, 3.99) dB for VF MD estimation in the Asian and Caucasian test sets, although difference between models was not significant. In focal VF estimation, XGB achieved median MAEs of 4.44 [IQR 3.45-5.17] dB and 3.87 [IQR 3.64-4.22] dB across the 24-2 VF for the Asian and Caucasian test sets and was comparable to VF estimates from support vector regression (SVR) models. VF estimates from both XGB and SVR were significantly better than the other models. These results show that XGB and SVR could potentially be used for both global and focal structure-function modeling in glaucoma.

Indexed as

GlaucomaVisual FieldsHumansIntraocular PressureMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceVision Disordersglaucomamachine learningoptical coherence tomographystructure-functionvisual field

Identifiers

PMID35729796
PMCPMC10946805
OpenAlexW4283271023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.