Glaucoma detection and evaluation through pattern recognition in standard automated perimetry data

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Volumn 247, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1517-1530

  Wroblewski, Dariusz ^a,b   Francis, Brian A ^c   Chopra, Vikas ^c   Kawji, A Shahem ^c   Quiros, Peter ^c   Dustin, Laurie ^c   Massengill, R Kemp ^c  

^a BioFormatix Inc   (United States)

^b University of Southern California ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Glaucoma screening; Glaucoma staging; Pattern recognition; Perimetry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; CORNEA THICKNESS; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE SEVERITY; FAMILY HISTORY; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; NEUROOPHTHALMOLOGY; OPTIC DISK CUP; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SEX DIFFERENCE; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE; VISUAL FIELD;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PROBABILITY; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 70349873348     PISSN: 0721832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-009-1121-7     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Boeglin RJ, Caprioli J, Zulauf M (1992) Long-term fluctuation of the visual field in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 113:396-400
2. Werner EB, Petrig B, Krupin T, Bishop KI (1989) Variability of automated visual fields in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 30:1083-1089
3. Flammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M (1984) Differential light threshold. Short and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls, and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 102:704
4. Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, Noecker RJ, Walt JG et al (2006) Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol 141:24-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.07.044
5. Haykin S (1994) Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. Macmillan College Publishing Co, New York, pp 236-281
6. Cristiani N, Shawe-Taylor J (2001) An Introduction to Support Vector Machines. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 93-121
7. Nabney I (2001) NETLAB: Algorithms for Pattern Recognition. Springer-Verlag, London Berlin Heidelberg, pp 191-218
8. Chang C-C, Lin C-J (2001) LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. Software available at http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm, accessed on Oct. 15, 2006
9. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, Chan K, Williams J, Lee T-W, Blumenthal E, Girkin CA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sejnowski T, Weinreb RN (2002) Comparing machine learning classifiers for diagnosing glaucoma from standard automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:162-169
10. Bebie H, Flammer J, Bebie T (1989) The cumulative defect curve: separation of local and diffuse components of visual field damage. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 227:9-12. doi: 10.1007/BF02169816
11. Twomey JM, Smith AE (1999) Bias and variance of validation methods for function approximation neural networks under conditions of sparse data, IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Part C Appl Rev 28:417-430
12. Flammer J, Drance SM, Augustiny L, Funkhouser A (1985) Quantification of glaucomatous visual field defects with automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26:176-181
13. Flammer J (1986) The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 224:389-392. doi: 10.1007/BF02173350
14. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1987) A package for statistical analysis of visual fields. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 49:153-168
15. Asman P, Heijl A (1992) Galucoma hemifield test. Arch Ophthalmol 110:812-819
16. Anton A, Maquet JA, Mayo A, Tapia J, Pastor JC (1997) Value of logistic discriminant analysis for interpreting initial visual field defects. Ophthalmology 104(3):525-531
17. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, White H et al (1994) Interpretation of automated perimetry for glaucoma by neural network. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35:3362-3373
18. Brigatti L, Hoffman D, Caprioli J (1996) Neural networks to identify glaucoma with structural and functional measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 121:511-521
19. Brigatti L, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Weitzman M, Caprioli J (1997) Automatic detection of glaucomatous visual field progression with neural networks. Arch Ophthalmol 115:725-728
20. Lietman T, Eng J, Katz J, Quigley HA (1999) Neural Networks and Visual Field Analysis: How Do They Compare with Other Algorithms? J Glaucoma 8:77-80. doi: 10.1097/00061198-199902000-00014
21. Zahlmann G, Scherf M, Wegner A, Obermaier M, Mertz M (2000) Situation assessment of glaucoma using a hybrid fuzzy neural network. IEEE Trans Eng Med Bio Mag 19:84-91. doi: 10.1109/51.816247
22. Chan K, Lee T-W, Sample PA, Goldbaum MH, Weinreb RN, Sejnowski TJ (2002) Comaprison of machine learning and traditional classifiers in glaucoma diagnosis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 49:963-973. doi: 10.1109/ TBME.2002.802012
23. Sample PA, Goldbaum MH, Chan K, Boden C, Lee T-W et al (2002) Using machine learning classifiers to identify glaucomatous change earlier in standard visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:2660-2665
24. Brusini P (1996) Clinical use of a new method for visual field damage classification in glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 6:402-407
25. Brusini P, Filacorda S (2006) Enhanced dlaucoma staging system (GSS 2) for classifying functional damage in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 15:40-46. doi: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000195932.48288.97
26. Lin A, Hoffman D, Gaasterland DE, Capprioli J (2003) Neural networks to identify glaucomatous visual field progression. Am J Ophthalmol 135:49-54. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01836-6