Artificial neural network-based glaucoma diagnosis using retinal nerve fiber layer analysis

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 915-921

  Grewal, Dilraj S ^a,b   Jain, R ^a   Grewal, S P S ^a   Rihani, V ^c  

^a Grewal Eye Institute   (India)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (India)

Author keywords

Artificial neural network; GDx Variable Corneal Compensation; Optical coherence tomography; Primary open angle glaucoma

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CLASSIFIER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MYOPIA; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA NERVE CELL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE FIBER; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; RETINA GANGLION CELL; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

AXONS; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC DISK; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, OPTICAL COHERENCE; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 58149374863     PISSN: 11206721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/112067210801800610     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 2242-50.
2. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 262-7.
3. Sommer A, Katz J, Quigley HA, et al. Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109: 77-83.
4. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 1268-79.
5. Varma R, Steinmann WC, Scott IU. Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 215-21.
6. Greany MJ, Hoffman DC, Garway-Heath DF, et al. Comparisons of optic nerve imaging methods to distinguish normal eyes from those with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43: 140-5.
7. Wollstein G, Garway-Heath DF, Hitchings RA. Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1557-63.
8. Sanchez-Galeana C, Bowd C, Blumenthal EZ, et al. Using optical imaging summary data to detect glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 1812-18.
9. Weinreb RN, Shakiba S, Sample PA, et al. Association between quantitative nerve fiber layer measurement and visual field loss in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 120: 732-8.
10. Hoh ST, Greenfield DS, Mistlberger A, et al. Optical coherence tomography and scanning laser polarimetry in normal, ocular hypertensive, and glaucomatous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129: 129-35.
11. Brigatti L, Hoffman D, Caprioli J. Neural networks to identify glaucoma with structural and functional measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 1996; 121: 511-21.
12. Burgansky-Eliash Z, Wollstein G, Chu T, et al. Optical coherence tomography machine learning classifiers for glaucoma detection: a preliminary study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 4147-52.
13. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, White H, et al. Interpretation of automated perimetry for glaucoma by neural network. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994; 35: 3362-73.
14. 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.
15. 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: 162-9.
16. Bizios D, Heijl A, Bengtsson B. Trained artificial neural network for glaucoma diagnosis using visual field data: a comparison with conventional algorithms. J Glaucoma 2007; 16: 20-8.
17. Colen TP, Tang NE, Mulder PG, Lemij HG. Sensitivity and specificity of new GDx parameters. J Glaucoma 2004; 13: 28-33.
18. Lauande-Pimentel R, Carvalho RA, Oliveiar HC, et al. Discrimination between normal and glaucomatous eyes with visual field and scanning laser polarimetry measurements. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 586-91.
19. Niessen AG, Van Den Berg TJ, Langerhorst CT, Greve EL. Retinal nerve fiber layer assessment by scanning laser polarimetry and standardized photography. Am J Ophthalmol 1996; 121: 484-93.
20. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and Stratus OCT optical coherence tomography for the detection of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122: 827-37.
21. Huang ML, Chen HY. Development and comparison of automated classifiers for glaucoma diagnosis using Stratus optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 4121-9.
22. Manassakorn A, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Caprioli J. Comparison of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic disk algorithms with optical coherence tomography to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 141: 105-15.
23. Huang M, Chen H. Development and comparison of automated classifiers for glaucoma diagnosis using Stratus optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 4121-9.
24. Uchida H, Brigatti L, Caprioli J. Detection of structural damage from glaucoma with confocal laser image analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996; 37: 2393-401.