Effects of input data on the performance of a neural network in distinguishing normal and glaucomatous visual fields

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 46, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 3730-3736

  Bengtsson, Boel ^a   Bizios, Dimitrios ^a   Heijl, Anders ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CATARACT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; PERFORMANCE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD; ALGORITHM; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; ROC CURVE; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); PERIMETRY; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 32944476589     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0175     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. A package for statistical analysis of computerized fields. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1987;49:153-168.
2. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. Early visual field defects in glaucoma: a study of eyes developing field loss. In: Bucci MG, ed. Glaucoma: Decision Making in Therapy. Milan, Italy: Springer Verlag; 1996;:75-78.
3. Bengtsson B, Lindgren A, Heijl A, Lindgren G, Åsman P, Patella VM. Perimetric probability maps to separate change caused by glaucoma from that caused by cataract. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997; 75:184-188.
4. Johnson CA, Wall M, Fingeret M, Lalle P. A Primer for Frequency Doubling Technology. Skaneateles, NY: Welch-Allyn Inc.; 1998:9-11.
5. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:645-650.
6. Heijl A, Patella VM. Essential Perimetry. The Field Analyzer Primer. 3rd ed. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.; 2002:37.
7. Åsman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test: automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:812-819.
8. Katz J, Sommer A, Gaasterland DE, Anderson DR. Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1684-1689.
9. Mutlukan E, Keating D. Visual field interpretation with a personal computer based neural network. Eye. 1994;8:321-323.
10. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, White H, et al. Interpretation of automated perimetry for glaucoma by neural network. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:3362-3373.
11. Lietman T, Eng J, Katz J, Quigley HA. Neural networks for visual field analysis: how do they compare with other algorithms? J Glaucoma. 1999;8:77-80.
12. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, Chan K, et al. Comparing machine learning classifiers for diagnosing glaucoma from standard automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:162-169.
13. Harrington DO, Drake MW. Computerized perimeters. The Visual Fields: Text and Atlas of Clinical Perimetry. 6th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1990:54-55.
14. Chauhan BC, Drance SM, Lai C. A cluster analysis for threshold perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1989;227:216-220.
15. Asman P, Heijl A, Olsson J, Rootzen H. Spatial analyses of glauco matous visual fields; a comparison with traditional visual field indices. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1992;70:679-686.
16. Brigatti L, Hoffman D, Caprioli J. Neural networks to identify glaucoma with structural and functional measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;121:511-521.
17. Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:1252-1254.
18. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2201-2204.
19. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:81-86.
20. Wild JM, Dengler-Harles M, Searle AE, O'Neill EC, Crews SJ. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1989;67:537-545.
21. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996; 114:19-22.
22. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:125-129.
23. Møller MF. A scaled conjugate gradient algorithm for fast supervised training. Neural Networks. 1993;6:525-533.
24. Stone M. Cross-validation choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc. 1974;B36:111-147.
25. Sweets J. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988;240:1285-1293.
26. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837-845.
27. Heijl A, Patella VM. Essential perimetry. The Field Analyzer Primer. 3rd ed. Dublin, CA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.; 2002:50.
28. Blumenthal E, Sapir-Pichhadze R. Misleading statistical calculations in far-advanced glaucomatous visual field loss. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:196-200.