Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

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

Kwokleung Chan, Te-Won Lee, Sample, P.A., Goldbaum, M.H., Weinreb, R.N., Sejnowski, T.J.·2002·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tbme.2002.802012

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cited by

See all 226

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.