Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 344

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discriminating Between Normal and Glaucomatous Eyes Using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph

Zangwill, Linda M.·2001·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of 3 instruments, the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT), the GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer (GDx), and the Optical Coherence Tomograph (OCT), to discriminate between healthy eyes and eyes with early to moderate glaucomatous visual field loss. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with early to moderate glaucomatous visual field loss and 50 healthy subjects were included in the study. The HRT, GDx, and OCT imaging and visual field testing were completed on 1 eye from each subject within a 6-month interval. Statistical differences in sensitivity at fixed specificities of 85%, 90%, and 95% were evaluated. In addition, areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were compared. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the area under the ROC curve and the best parameter from each instrument: OCT thickness at the 5-o'clock inferior temporal position (mean +/- SE, 0.87 +/- 0.04), HRT mean height contour in the nasal inferior region (mean +/- SE, 0.86 +/- 0.04), and GDx linear discriminant function (mean +/- SE, 0.84 +/- 0.04). Twelve HRT, 2 GDx, and 9 OCT parameters had an area under the ROC curve of at least 0.81. At a fixed specificity of 90%, significant differences were found between the sensitivity of OCT thickness at the 5-o'clock inferior temporal position (71%) and parameters with sensitivities less than 52%. Qualitative assessment of stereophotographs resulted in a sensitivity of 80%. CONCLUSION: Although the area under the ROC curves was similar among the best parameters from each instrument, qualitative assessment of stereophotographs and measurements from the OCT and HRT generally had higher sensitivities than measurements from the GDx.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.119.7.985

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 344

Metadata

Authors
Zangwill, L. M.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
2001-07-01
Volume
119
Issue
7
Pages
985
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2164974115
Cited by
344
References
17
FWCI
24.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discriminating Between Normal and Glaucomatous Eyes Using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.119.7.985
The paper
Zangwill, L. M. (2001). Discriminating Between Normal and Glaucomatous Eyes Using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.119.7.985

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.