ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
A Deep Learning Model for Glaucoma Detection Outperforms Conventional Metrics.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Larger Real-World OCT Reference Database Improves Accuracy of Glaucoma Flagging Using Summary Metrics.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- A Deep Learning Model Detects Glaucoma Based on an OCT Report, but Where Should the Clinician Look to Identify Glaucomatous Damage?Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To test a deep learning model (DLM) for detecting glaucomatous damage with optical coherence tomography (OCT) reports. Methods: An ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-50 model was fine-tuned to classify healthy (H) versus glaucomatous (G) OCT reports. The model was trained with 4932 H and 207 G OCT wide-field reports and tested on three unseen datasets. The "Clear G" cohort consisted of 50 eyes with clear glaucomatous damage based on OCT, visual fields, photos, and clinical exams. The "Pattern ON-G" cohort contained 183 eyes over 60 years of age with OCT arcuate defects. These defects ranged from subtle to advanced. The H-test cohort contained 396 eyes from a commercial normative reference database. We compared the DLM to five conventional metrics. Results: For a DLM cutoff yielding a 99.5% specificity on the 396 H-test eyes, the DLM achieved a sensitivity of 100% with the 50 Clear G and 95.1% with the 183 Pattern ON-G reports. The AUROC was 0.999. The DLM was significantly better than 3 conventional metrics. For example, global circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber thickness showed a specificity of 97.7% for the 396 H eyes, sensitivities of 73.8% and 44.1% for the G cohorts, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.883. The best of the conventional metrics, which was based on a logistic regression model, also had significantly poorer sensitivities (84.6% and 66.1%) for the G cohorts and a lower AUROC (0.975). Conclusions: The DLM achieved high specificity and sensitivity and outperformed conventional metrics. Translational Relevance: The DLM provides a possible method for screening, and a possible diagnostic aid for clinicians.
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.