Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39823435›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Glaucoma detection and staging from visual field images using machine learning techniques.

Nahida Akter, Jack Gordon, Sherry Li, Mikki Poon, Stuart Perry, John Fletcher, Thomas Chan, Andrew White, Maitreyee Roy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Artificial Intelligence in Glaucoma Detection and Progression.Advances in ophthalmology and optometry · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

9 authors.

Nahida AkterSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jack GordonSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sherry LiSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mikki PoonSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Stuart PerrySchool of Electrical and Data Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2794-3178
John FletcherSchool of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Thomas ChanFaculty of Medicine & Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew WhiteFaculty of Medicine & Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Maitreyee RoySchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7314-3801

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this study, we investigated the performance of deep learning (DL) models to differentiate between normal and glaucomatous visual fields (VFs) and classify glaucoma from early to the advanced stage to observe if the DL model can stage glaucoma as Mills criteria using only the pattern deviation (PD) plots. The DL model results were compared with a machine learning (ML) classifier trained on conventional VF parameters.

methodsA total of 265 PD plots and 265 numerical datasets of Humphrey 24-2 VF images were collected from 119 normal and 146 glaucomatous eyes to train the DL models to classify the images into four groups: normal, early glaucoma, moderate glaucoma, and advanced glaucoma. The two popular pre-trained DL models: ResNet18 and VGG16, were used to train the PD images using five-fold cross-validation (CV) and observed the performance using balanced, pre-augmented data (n = 476 images), imbalanced original data (n = 265) and feature extraction. The trained images were further investigated using the Grad-CAM visualization technique. Moreover, four ML models were trained from the global indices: mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD) and visual field index (VFI), using five-fold CV to compare the classification performance with the DL model's result.

resultsThe DL model, ResNet18 trained from balanced, pre-augmented PD images, achieved high accuracy in classifying the groups with an overall F1-score: 96.8%, precision: 97.0%, recall: 96.9%, and specificity: 99.0%. The highest F1 score was 87.8% for ResNet18 with the original dataset and 88.7% for VGG16 with feature extraction. The DL models successfully localized the affected VF loss in PD plots. Among the ML models, the random forest (RF) classifier performed best with an F1 score of 96%.

conclusionThe DL model trained from PD plots was promising in differentiating normal and glaucomatous groups and performed similarly to conventional global indices. Hence, the evidence-based DL model trained from PD images demonstrated that the DL model could stage glaucoma using only PD plots like Mills criteria. This automated DL model will assist clinicians in precision glaucoma detection and progression management during extensive glaucoma screening.

Indexed as

GlaucomaMachine LearningVisual FieldsAgedDeep LearningFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVisual Field Tests

Identifiers

PMID39823435
PMCPMC11741594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.