Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 184

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Macular Ganglion Cell Imaging Study: Glaucoma Diagnostic Accuracy of Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography

Jeoung, Jin Wook, Choi, Yun Jeong, Park, Ki Ho, Kim, Dong Myung·2013·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) measurements using a high-definition optical coherence tomography (Cirrus HD-OCT) ganglion cell analysis algorithm for detecting early and moderate-to-severe glaucoma. METHODS: Totals of 119 normal subjects and 306 glaucoma patients (164 patients with early glaucoma and 142 with moderate-to-severe glaucoma) were enrolled from the Macular Ganglion Cell Imaging Study. Macular GCIPL, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, and optic nerve head (ONH) parameters were measured in each subject. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were calculated and compared. Based on the internal normative database, the sensitivity and specificity for detecting early and moderate-to-severe glaucoma were calculated. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the AUROCs for the best OCT parameters. For detecting early glaucoma, the sensitivity of the Cirrus GCIPL parameters ranged from 26.8% to 73.2% and that of the Cirrus RNFL parameters ranged from 6.1% to 61.6%. For the early glaucoma group, the best parameter from the GCIPL generally had a higher sensitivity than those of the RNFL and ONH parameters with comparable specificity (P < 0.05, McNemar's test). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between the AUROCs for Cirrus GCIPL, RNFL, and ONH parameters, indicating that these maps have similar diagnostic potentials for glaucoma. The minimum GCIPL showed better glaucoma diagnostic performance than the other parameters at comparable specificities. However, other GCIPL parameters showed performances comparable to those of the RNFL parameters.

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 · 10.1167/iovs.12-11273

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Jeoung, J. W., Choi, Y. J., Park, K. H., & Kim, D. M.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2013-07-01
Volume
54
Issue
7
Pages
4422
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W1986327882
Cited by
184
References
1
FWCI
16.26
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.