IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207784.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automated algorithms combining structure and function outperform general ophthalmologists in diagnosing glaucoma

Author

Listed:
  • Leonardo Seidi Shigueoka
  • José Paulo Cabral de Vasconcellos
  • Rui Barroso Schimiti
  • Alexandre Soares Castro Reis
  • Gabriel Ozeas de Oliveira
  • Edson Satoshi Gomi
  • Jayme Augusto Rocha Vianna
  • Renato Dichetti dos Reis Lisboa
  • Felipe Andrade Medeiros
  • Vital Paulino Costa

Abstract

Purpose: To test the ability of machine learning classifiers (MLCs) using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) parameters to discriminate between healthy and glaucomatous individuals, and to compare it to the diagnostic ability of the combined structure-function index (CSFI), general ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists. Design: Cross-sectional prospective study. Methods: Fifty eight eyes of 58 patients with early to moderate glaucoma (median value of the mean deviation = −3.44 dB; interquartile range, -6.0 to -2.4 dB) and 66 eyes of 66 healthy individuals underwent OCT and SAP tests. The diagnostic accuracy (area under the ROC curve—AUC) of 10 MLCs was compared to those obtained with the CSFI, 3 general ophthalmologists and 3 glaucoma specialists exposed to the same OCT and SAP data. Results: The AUCs obtained with MLCs ranged from 0.805 (Classification Tree) to 0.931 (Radial Basis Function Network, RBF). The sensitivity at 90% specificity ranged from 51.6% (Classification Tree) to 82.8% (Bagging, Multilayer Perceptron and Support Vector Machine Gaussian). The CSFI had a sensitivity of 79.3% at 90% specificity, and the highest AUC (0.948). General ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists’ grading had sensitivities of 66.2% and 83.8% at 90% specificity, and AUCs of 0.879 and 0.921, respectively. RBF (the best MLC), the CSFI, and glaucoma specialists showed significantly higher AUCs than that obtained by general ophthalmologists (P 0.25). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that both MLCs and the CSFI can be helpful in clinical practice and effectively improve glaucoma diagnosis in the primary eye care setting, when there is no glaucoma specialist available.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonardo Seidi Shigueoka & José Paulo Cabral de Vasconcellos & Rui Barroso Schimiti & Alexandre Soares Castro Reis & Gabriel Ozeas de Oliveira & Edson Satoshi Gomi & Jayme Augusto Rocha Vianna & Renat, 2018. "Automated algorithms combining structure and function outperform general ophthalmologists in diagnosing glaucoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207784
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207784
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207784
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207784&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207784?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207784. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.