ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2022
Investigation of the Role of Convolutional Neural Network Architectures in the Diagnosis of Glaucoma using Color Fundus Photography.
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in glaucoma: opportunities, challenges, and future directions.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Pooled it
- Combined diagnostic accuracy of two artificial intelligence systems for glaucoma diagnosis using color fundus photography.PloS one · 2026Article
- Automated Classification of Physiologic, Glaucomatous, and Glaucoma-Suspected Optic Discs Using Machine Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical Perspectives on the Use of Computer Vision in Glaucoma Screening.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Advancing glaucoma detection with convolutional neural networks: a paradigm shift in ophthalmology.Romanian 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the performance of convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures to distinguish eyes with glaucoma from normal eyes. Materials and Methods: A total of 9,950 fundus photographs of 5,388 patients from the database of Eskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine Ophthalmology Clinic were labelled as glaucoma, glaucoma suspect, or normal by three different experienced ophthalmologists. The categorized fundus photographs were evaluated using a state-of-the-art two-dimensional CNN and compared with deep residual networks (ResNet) and very deep neural networks (VGG). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of glaucoma detection with the different algorithms were evaluated using a dataset of 238 normal and 320 glaucomatous fundus photographs. For the detection of suspected glaucoma, ResNet-101 architectures were tested with a data set of 170 normal, 170 glaucoma, and 167 glaucoma-suspect fundus photographs. Results: Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in detecting glaucoma were 96.2%, 99.5%, and 93.7% with ResNet-50; 97.4%, 97.8%, and 97.1% with ResNet-101; 98.9%, 100%, and 98.1% with VGG-19, and 99.4%, 100%, and 99% with the 2D CNN, respectively. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity values in distinguishing glaucoma suspects from normal eyes were 62%, 68%, and 56% and those for differentiating glaucoma from suspected glaucoma were 92%, 81%, and 97%, respectively. While 55 photographs could be evaluated in 2 seconds with CNN, a clinician spent an average of 24.2 seconds to evaluate a single photograph. Conclusion: An appropriately designed and trained CNN was able to distinguish glaucoma with high accuracy even with a small number of fundus photographs.
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.