PURPOSE: Machine-learning classifiers are trained computerized systems with the ability to detect the relationship between multiple input parameters and a diagnosis. The present study investigated whether the use of machine-learning classifiers improves optical coherence tomography (OCT) glaucoma detection. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with glaucoma (47 eyes) and 42 healthy subjects (42 eyes) were included in this cross-sectional study. Of the glaucoma patients, 27 had early disease (visual field mean deviation [MD] > or = -6 dB) and 20 had advanced glaucoma (MD < -6 dB). Machine-learning classifiers were trained to discriminate between glaucomatous and healthy eyes using parameters derived from OCT output. The classifiers were trained with all 38 parameters as well as with only 8 parameters that correlated best with the visual field MD. Five classifiers were tested: linear discriminant analysis, support vector machine, recursive partitioning and regression tree, generalized linear model, and generalized additive model. For the last two classifiers, a backward feature selection was used to find the minimal number of parameters that resulted in the best and most simple prediction. The cross-validated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and accuracies were calculated. RESULTS: The largest area under the ROC curve (AROC) for glaucoma detection was achieved with the support vector machine using eight parameters (0.981). The sensitivity at 80% and 95% specificity was 97.9% and 92.5%, respectively. This classifier also performed best when judged by cross-validated accuracy (0.966). The best classification between early glaucoma and advanced glaucoma was obtained with the generalized additive model using only three parameters (AROC = 0.854). CONCLUSIONS: Automated machine classifiers of OCT data might be useful for enhancing the utility of this technology for detecting glaucomatous abnormality.
PURPOSE: Machine-learning classifiers are trained computerized systems with the ability to detect the relationship between multiple input parameters and a diagnosis. The present study investigated whether the use of machine-learning classifiers improves optical coherence tomography (OCT) glaucoma detection. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with glaucoma (47 eyes) and 42 healthy subjects (42 eyes) were included in this cross-sectional study. Of the glaucomapatients, 27 had early disease (visual field mean deviation [MD] > or = -6 dB) and 20 had advanced glaucoma (MD < -6 dB). Machine-learning classifiers were trained to discriminate between glaucomatous and healthy eyes using parameters derived from OCT output. The classifiers were trained with all 38 parameters as well as with only 8 parameters that correlated best with the visual field MD. Five classifiers were tested: linear discriminant analysis, support vector machine, recursive partitioning and regression tree, generalized linear model, and generalized additive model. For the last two classifiers, a backward feature selection was used to find the minimal number of parameters that resulted in the best and most simple prediction. The cross-validated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and accuracies were calculated. RESULTS: The largest area under the ROC curve (AROC) for glaucoma detection was achieved with the support vector machine using eight parameters (0.981). The sensitivity at 80% and 95% specificity was 97.9% and 92.5%, respectively. This classifier also performed best when judged by cross-validated accuracy (0.966). The best classification between early glaucoma and advanced glaucoma was obtained with the generalized additive model using only three parameters (AROC = 0.854). CONCLUSIONS: Automated machine classifiers of OCT data might be useful for enhancing the utility of this technology for detecting glaucomatous abnormality.
Authors: L M Zangwill; C Bowd; C C Berry; J Williams; E Z Blumenthal; C A Sánchez-Galeana; C Vasile; R N Weinreb Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2001-07
Authors: Lelia A Paunescu; Joel S Schuman; Lori Lyn Price; Paul C Stark; Siobahn Beaton; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Gadi Wollstein; James G Fujimoto Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Gadi Wollstein; Joel S Schuman; Lori L Price; Ali Aydin; Siobahn A Beaton; Paul C Stark; James G Fujimoto; Hiroshi Ishikawa Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Linda M Zangwill; Kwokleung Chan; Christopher Bowd; Jicuang Hao; Te-Won Lee; Robert N Weinreb; Terrence J Sejnowski; Michael H Goldbaum Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Kyung Rim Sung; Jong S Kim; Gadi Wollstein; Lindsey Folio; Michael S Kook; Joel S Schuman Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Rony Gelman; Steven L Williams; Joo-Yeon Lee; Daniel S Casper; M Elena Martinez-Perez; John T Flynn Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Christopher Bowd; Intae Lee; Michael H Goldbaum; Madhusudhanan Balasubramanian; Felipe A Medeiros; Linda M Zangwill; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Kyung Rim Sung; Gadi Wollstein; Na Rae Kim; Jung Hwa Na; Jessica E Nevins; Chan Yun Kim; Joel S Schuman Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Pratul P Srinivasan; Stephanie J Heflin; Joseph A Izatt; Vadim Y Arshavsky; Sina Farsiu Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: K A Townsend; G Wollstein; D Danks; K R Sung; H Ishikawa; L Kagemann; M L Gabriele; J S Schuman Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Ake Tzu-Hui Lu; Mingwu Wang; Rohit Varma; Joel S Schuman; David S Greenfield; Scott D Smith; David Huang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 12.079