| Literature DB >> 29261773 |
Kazuko Omodaka1,2, Guangzhou An3,4, Satoru Tsuda1, Yukihiro Shiga1, Naoko Takada1, Tsutomu Kikawa3, Hidetoshi Takahashi5, Hideo Yokota4,6, Masahiro Akiba3,4, Toru Nakazawa1,2,6,7,8.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a machine learning-based algorithm for objective classification of the optic disc in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG), using quantitative parameters obtained from ophthalmic examination instruments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29261773 PMCID: PMC5736185 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic data.
| All | FI | GE | MY | SS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 163 | n = 26 | n = 50 | n = 55 | n = 32 | |
| 85 / 78 | 9 / 17 | 31 / 19 | 27 / 28 | 18 / 14 | |
| 62.3 ± 12.6 | 63.0 ± 11.9 | 65.7 ± 10.0 | 53.6 ± 11.6 | 71.5 ± 9.1 | |
| -8.9 ± 7.5 | -5.2 ± 5.8 | -12.9 ± 7.7 | -7.8 ± 7.1 | -7.8 ± 6.0 | |
| -2.5 ± 2.9 | -1.2 ± 1.7 | -0.5 ± 1.5 | -5.6 ± 2.2 | -1.5 ± 2.1 | |
| 13.3 ± 3.5 | 13.6 ± 3.4 | 13.3 ± 2.9 | 13.4 ± 2.9 | 13.3 ± 2.9 |
aFI: focal ischemic,
bGE: generalized enlargement,
cMY: myopic,
dSS: senile sclerotic,
eMD: Humphrey-field analyzer (HFA)-measured mean deviation,
fSE: spherical equivalent,
gD: diopters,
hIOP: intraocular pressure.
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.
Assignment data.
| Training data | Test data | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 114 | n = 49 | ||||||||
| FI | GE | MY | SS | FI | GE | MY | SS | ||
| 18 | 35 | 39 | 22 | 8 | 15 | 16 | 10 | ||
| 58 / 56 | 27 / 22 | 1.000 | |||||||
| 62.8 ± 12.5 | 61.1 ± 13.0 | 0.432 | |||||||
| -9.6 ± 7.6 | -7.4 ± 7.0 | 0.085 | |||||||
| -2.6 ± 2.9 | -2.4 ± 3.1 | 0.693 | |||||||
| 13.3 ± 2.6 | 13.1 ± 2.4 | 0.646 | |||||||
aFI: focal ischemic,
bGE: generalized enlargement,
cMY: myopic,
dSS: senile sclerotic,
eMD: Humphrey-field analyzer (HFA)-measured mean deviation,
fSE: spherical equivalent,
gD: diopters,
hIOP: intraocular pressure.
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Fig 1Quantitative ocular parameters from ophthalmic examination instruments.
Ninety one types of quantitative data from 7 aspects of patient background (gray column) and 84 types of data, included 22 parameters of optic disc topography (white column), as well as 26 measurement parameters related to cpRNFLT (pink column) and 36 LSFG BF parameters (orange column).
Fig 2Feature contribution to Nicolela’s classification.
The nine most important discriminative characteristics selected by the NN were listed as high contribution order. Overall, horizontal disc angle was the most contributed characteristics of Nicolela’s classification. Contribution to each optic disc type, was also calculated. The value was the relative value of deviation from the mean of each feature. For example, in aspect of age, SS that only has the positive value means SS tends to have older age, compared to other types.
Fig 3Prediction examples of 3 glaucoma patients.
The confidence level of the each Nicolela’s type calculated by the NN model. (a) and (b) showed the NN model predicts accurately with high confidence level as GE (a) and SS (b). (c) NN model predicts with mistake, when discs had a mixed type (FI and MY).