ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Automated Classification of Physiologic, Glaucomatous, and Glaucoma-Suspected Optic Discs Using Machine Learning.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to generate a machine learning algorithm (MLA) that can support ophthalmologists with the diagnosis of glaucoma, a carefully selected dataset that is based on clinically confirmed glaucoma patients as well as borderline cases (e.g., patients with suspected glaucoma) is required. The clinical annotation of datasets is usually performed at the expense of the data volume, which results in poorer algorithm performance. This study aimed to evaluate the application of an MLA for the automated classification of physiological optic discs (PODs), glaucomatous optic discs (GODs), and glaucoma-suspected optic discs (GSODs). Annotation of the data to the three groups was based on the diagnosis made in clinical practice by a glaucoma specialist. Color fundus photographs and 14 types of metadata (including visual field testing, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, and cup-disc ratio) of 1168 eyes from 584 patients (POD = 321, GOD = 336, GSOD = 310) were used for the study. Machine learning (ML) was performed in the first step with the color fundus photographs only and in the second step with the images and metadata. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the classification of GSOD vs. GOD and POD vs. GOD were evaluated. Classification of GOD vs. GSOD and GOD vs. POD performed in the first step had AUCs of 0.84 and 0.88, respectively. By combining the images and metadata, the AUCs increased to 0.92 and 0.99, respectively. By combining images and metadata, excellent performance of the MLA can be achieved despite having only a small amount of data, thus supporting ophthalmologists with glaucoma diagnosis.
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.