ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Convolutional Graph Isomorphism Network to Detect Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a deep learning (DL) model based on graph isomorphism networks (GINs) for detecting glaucomatous visual field defects on 24-2 standard automated perimetry (SAP) and to compare it against traditional diagnostic criteria, a dense neural network (NN) model, and a convolutional neural network (CNN) model. Design: A cross-sectional retrospective study. Participants: 1874 reliable SAP tests (Humphrey Field Analyzer, Carl-Zeiss Meditec Inc.) from 1009 eyes of 676 patients. Methods: Standard automated perimetry tests were classified as normal or abnormal due to glaucomatous damage by two glaucoma specialists, with adjudication by a third. A GIN architecture was developed to classify tests using full 54-point spatial SAP data modeled as graphs, with node features comprising sensitivity, total deviation, and pattern deviation values. The dataset was split at the patient level (60% training/validation, 40% testing). The GIN model's diagnostic performance was compared to the Anderson criteria, the glaucoma hemifield test/pattern standard deviation (GHT/PSD) criteria, a fully connected dense NN, and a CNN model. Main Outcome Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), precision-recall curve, sensitivity at 95% specificity, F1-score, repeatability, and model explainability. Results: Among the 1874 SAP tests, 70.0% were graded as abnormal. The GIN model achieved an AUC of 0.982, significantly outperforming the Anderson criteria (AUC: 0.906, Conclusions: By modeling SAP as a graph and incorporating spatial relationships among test points, the GIN model provided superior diagnostic performance and interpretability relative to traditional criteria and standard NNs. This graph-based approach offers a promising tool for accurate and explainable detection of glaucomatous visual field defects in clinical practice. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.