Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CNNs for automatic glaucoma assessment using fundus images: an extensive validation

Open access
Diaz-Pinto, Andres, Morales, Sandra, Naranjo, Valery, Köhler, Thomas, Mossi, Jose M., Navea, Amparo·2019·BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most current algorithms for automatic glaucoma assessment using fundus images rely on handcrafted features based on segmentation, which are affected by the performance of the chosen segmentation method and the extracted features. Among other characteristics, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are known because of their ability to learn highly discriminative features from raw pixel intensities. METHODS: In this paper, we employed five different ImageNet-trained models (VGG16, VGG19, InceptionV3, ResNet50 and Xception) for automatic glaucoma assessment using fundus images. Results from an extensive validation using cross-validation and cross-testing strategies were compared with previous works in the literature. RESULTS: Using five public databases (1707 images), an average AUC of 0.9605 with a 95% confidence interval of 95.92-97.07%, an average specificity of 0.8580 and an average sensitivity of 0.9346 were obtained after using the Xception architecture, significantly improving the performance of other state-of-the-art works. Moreover, a new clinical database, ACRIMA, has been made publicly available, containing 705 labelled images. It is composed of 396 glaucomatous images and 309 normal images, which means, the largest public database for glaucoma diagnosis. The high specificity and sensitivity obtained from the proposed approach are supported by an extensive validation using not only the cross-validation strategy but also the cross-testing validation on, to the best of the authors' knowledge, all publicly available glaucoma-labelled databases. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that using ImageNet-trained models is a robust alternative for automatic glaucoma screening system. All images, CNN weights and software used to fine-tune and test the five CNNs are publicly available, which could be used as a testbed for further comparisons.

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 · 10.1186/s12938-019-0649-y

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Metadata

Authors
Diaz-Pinto, A., Morales, S., Naranjo, V., Köhler, T., Mossi, J. M., & Navea, A.
Venue
BioMedical Engineering OnLine
Published
2019-03-20
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
29-29
ISSN
1475-925X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2938600289
Cited by
435
References
30
FWCI
25.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: CNNs for automatic glaucoma assessment using fundus images: an extensive validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12938-019-0649-y
The paper
Diaz-Pinto, A., Morales, S., Naranjo, V., Köhler, T., Mossi, J. M., & Navea, A. (2019). CNNs for automatic glaucoma assessment using fundus images: an extensive validation. BioMedical Engineering OnLine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-019-0649-y

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.