The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of machine learning and traditional classifiers in glaucoma diagnosis
Abstract
Glaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy with characteristic structural changes in the optic nerve head reflected in the visual field. The visual-field sensitivity test is commonly used in a clinical setting to evaluate glaucoma. Standard automated perimetry (SAP) is a common computerized visual-field test whose output is amenable to machine learning. We compared the performance of a number of machine learning algorithms with STATPAC indexes mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and corrected pattern standard deviation. The machine learning algorithms studied included multilayer perceptron (MLP), support vector machine (SVM), and linear (LDA) and quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), Parzen window, mixture of Gaussian (MOG), and mixture of generalized Gaussian (MGG). MLP and SVM are classifiers that work directly on the decision boundary and fall under the discriminative paradigm. Generative classifiers, which first model the data probability density and then perform classification via Bayes' rule, usually give deeper insight into the structure of the data space. We have applied MOG, MGG, LDA, QDA, and Parzen window to the classification of glaucoma from SAP. Performance of the various classifiers was compared by the areas under their receiver operating characteristic curves and by sensitivities (true-positive rates) at chosen specificities (true-negative rates). The machine-learning-type classifiers showed improved performance over the best indexes from STATPAC. Forward-selection and backward-elimination methodology further improved the classification rate and also has the potential to reduce testing time by diminishing the number of visual-field location measurements.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition
Bishop, C. M. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · Cited by 12,287
The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain.
Rosenblatt, F. (1958) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042519 · Cited by 12,280
Friedman, N., Geiger, D., & Goldszmidt, M. (1997) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007465528199 · Cited by 4,742
Cited by
Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences
Miller, T. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 · Cited by 5,302
Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A global perspective
Li, J.-P. O., Liu, H., Ting, D. S. J., Jeon, S., Chan, R. V. P., Kim, J. E., Sim, D. A., Thomas, P. B. M., Lin, H., Chen, Y., et al. (2021) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100900 · Cited by 626
Mentis, A.-F. A., Lee, D., & Roussos, P. (2024) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-023-02047-6 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Chan, K., Lee, T.-W., Sample, P. A., Goldbaum, M. H., Weinreb, R. N., & Sejnowski, T. J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 963-974
- ISSN
- 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2133671386
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.38
- 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
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.