| Literature DB >> 21816080 |
Dimitrios Bizios1, Anders Heijl, Boel Bengtsson.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The performance of glaucoma diagnostic systems could be conceivably improved by the integration of functional and structural test measurements that provide relevant and complementary information for reaching a diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the performance of data fusion methods and techniques for simple combination of Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) data for the diagnosis of glaucoma using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21816080 PMCID: PMC3167760 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2415-11-20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Figure 1Map representing the relationship between Standard Automated Perimetry visual field sectors and sections of the peripapillary OCT scan circle. This map is based on the work of Garway-Heath et al and shows the correspondence between areas of the visual field and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer due to the anatomical configuration of the retinal nerve fiber bundles.
Figure 2Examined types of test data used as input to artificial neural network classifiers. Input to the ANNs consisted of the 22 parameters derived from PCA preprocessing of the OCT A-scan data (processed OCT), the 52 scored SAP parameters, 52 fused SAP parameters derived from incorporation of information from the corrected OCT data, and the 38 fused OCT parameters derived from incorporation of scored SAP data and PCA preprocessing.
Demographic data of included healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma.
| Healthy | Glaucoma | p - value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 66/59 | 79/56 | NS*(χ2 test) | |
| 64.65 ± 8.11 | 73.36 ± 7.81 | < 0.0001 | |
| 1.00 ± 0.15 | 0.86 ± 0.19 | < 0.0001 | |
| +0.53 ± 1.74 | -0.15 ± 1.82 | 0.0015 | |
| -0.66 ± 1.77 | -11.04 ± 8.21 | < 0.0001 | |
All values except for gender are represented as mean ± standard deviation.
* NS: non significant
† MD: mean deviation value in decibel, as measured by 24-2 SITA Standard program
Figure 3Performance measured as Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AROC) for the compared parameters. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) AROCs for the different input types used. The upper quadrant of the diagram (shaded area) is shown in magnification. The largest AROCs were created by Artificial Neural Network (ANN) ensembles with input based on the fused OCT data and the combined fused OCT and SAP data. Figure abreviations: SAP data: Standard Automated Perimetry data, based on Pattern Deviation (PD) probability scores. F-SAP data: Fused SAP data, based on weighted transformation of PD probability scores with OCT-derived probability scores. OCT data: Age- and refraction corrected OpticalCoherence Tomography A-scan data, optimized by principal component analysis (PCA). F-OCT data: Fused OCT data, based on weighted transformation of A-scan measurements with PD probability scores and optimized by PCA.
Performance Comparison between Artificial Neural Networks based on fused, combined and single types of data.
| F-SAP data | F-OCT data | SAP & OCT Data | F-SAP & F-OCT data | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAP data | 0.502 | 0.147 | ||
| OCT data | 0.431 | 0.576 | 0.879 | 0.562 |
Significance (p) values of Area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (AROC) curves were calculated by DeLongs non-parametric method.
SAP data: Standard Automated Perimetry data, based on Pattern Deviation (PD) probability scores
F-SAP data: Fused SAP data, based on weighted transformation of PD probability scores with OCT-derived probability scores
OCT data: Age - and refraction corrected Optical Coherence Tomography A-scan data, optimized by principal component analysis (PCA)
F-OCT data: Fused OCT data, based on weighted transformation of A-scan measurements
with PD probability scores and optimized by PCA
Bold indicates statistical significance (i.e. p < 0.05)
Figure 4Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Classification for fused and non-fused data. The two diagrams show the classification output of the ANNs based on fused and non-fused data, for each healthy individual and glaucoma patient. The odds ratios given for each diagram signify the chance that a test will be classified as normal or abnormal by both SAP-based and OCT-based ANNs. The number of misclassified tests from ANNs based on these different types of data, as well as their combination, is also shown.
Figure 5Classification examples for OCT-based and SAP-based Artificial Neural Networks. Three examples (two healthy individuals and one glaucoma patient) with disagreement between the SAP-based and OCT-based ANN classification results are highlighted. This disagreement is not evident in the classification results of ANNs based on fused OCT (F-OCT) and SAP (F-SAP) input data, where all three individuals are correctly classified. The ANN classification results for these three persons using combined OCT and SAP as well as combined F-OCT and S-SAP data are also provided under each diagram.