The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development of machine learning models for diagnosis of glaucoma
Open accessAbstract
The study aimed to develop machine learning models that have strong prediction power and interpretability for diagnosis of glaucoma based on retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and visual field (VF). We collected various candidate features from the examination of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and visual field (VF). We also developed synthesized features from original features. We then selected the best features proper for classification (diagnosis) through feature evaluation. We used 100 cases of data as a test dataset and 399 cases of data as a training and validation dataset. To develop the glaucoma prediction model, we considered four machine learning algorithms: C5.0, random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and k-nearest neighbor (KNN). We repeatedly composed a learning model using the training dataset and evaluated it by using the validation dataset. Finally, we got the best learning model that produces the highest validation accuracy. We analyzed quality of the models using several measures. The random forest model shows best performance and C5.0, SVM, and KNN models show similar accuracy. In the random forest model, the classification accuracy is 0.98, sensitivity is 0.983, specificity is 0.975, and AUC is 0.979. The developed prediction models show high accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC in classifying among glaucoma and healthy eyes. It will be used for predicting glaucoma against unknown examination records. Clinicians may reference the prediction results and be able to make better decisions. We may combine multiple learning models to increase prediction accuracy. The C5.0 model includes decision rules for prediction. It can be used to explain the reasons for specific predictions.
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
(1992) · Cited by 23,431
Quinlan, J. R. (1986) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00116251 · Cited by 21,439
The Pathophysiology and Treatment of Glaucoma: A Review
Weinreb, R. N., Aung, T., & Medeiros, F. A. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.3192 · Cited by 4,210
Supervised Machine Learning: A Review of Classification Techniques
Kotsiantis, S. B. (2007) · Informatica · Cited by 4,185
The Handbook of brain theory and neural networks
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-4484 · Cited by 3,870
An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms
Caruana, R., & Niculescu-Mizil, A. (2006) · Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '06 · doi:10.1145/1143844.1143865 · Cited by 2,780
The Handbook of brain theory and neural networks
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-0300 · Cited by 1,524
Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy: Basic Definitions.
Šimundić, A.-M. (2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 1,364
Measures of diagnostic accuracy: basic definitions
Šimundić, A.-M. (2009) · Medical and Biological Sciences · Cited by 1,136
Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity
Lalkhen, A. G., & McCluskey, A. (2008) · Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain · doi:10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkn041 · Cited by 934
Cited by
Artificial intelligence and deep learning in ophthalmology
Ting, D. S. W., Pasquale, L. R., Peng, L., Campbell, J. P., Lee, A. Y., Raman, R., Tan, G. S. W., Schmetterer, L., Keane, P. A., & Wong, T. Y. (2019) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313173 · Cited by 1,554
Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning in Ophthalmology
Wang, Z., Keane, P. A., Chiang, M., Cheung, C. Y., Wong, T. Y., & Ting, D. S. W. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64573-1_200 · Cited by 1,524
Introduction to Machine Learning, Neural Networks, and Deep Learning.
Choi, R. Y., Coyner, A. S., Kalpathy–Cramer, J., Chiang, M. F., & Campbell, J. P. (2020) · PubMed · doi:10.1167/tvst.9.2.14 · Cited by 1,012
The impact of artificial intelligence in medicine on the future role of the physician
Ahuja, A. S. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.7702 · Cited by 789
Artificial intelligence in retina
Schmidt-Erfurth, U., Sadeghipour, A., Gerendas, B. S., Waldstein, S. M., & Bogunović, H. (2018) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.07.004 · Cited by 779
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, S. J., Cho, K. J., & Oh, S.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2017-05-23
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e0177726
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2616952103
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 20.97
- 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: Development of machine learning models for diagnosis of glaucoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0177726
- The paper
- Kim, S. J., Cho, K. J., & Oh, S. (2017). Development of machine learning models for diagnosis of glaucoma. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177726
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.