MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139839779 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1995.575393

The detection of glaucoma using an artificial neural network

2002· article· en· W2139839779 on OpenAlexafffund
Craig Michael Parfitt, Frederick S. Mikelberg, Nicholas V. Swindale

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGlaucomaBackpropagationArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceOptic nervePattern recognition (psychology)Data setFeedforward neural networkSet (abstract data type)Computer visionOphthalmologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scanning laser ophthalmoscope is a device used by ophthalmologists to obtain topographic images of patients' optic nerve heads (ONHs). Measurements are taken from these images that quantitatively describe the shape of the ONH. Glaucoma involves the loss of retinal nerve fibers, which in turn produces a change in the ONH shape. However, it is not known which shape parameters are most relevant to the diagnosis of glaucoma. To solve this problem, a feedforward artificial neural network (ANN) was designed to discriminate between patient data. Patients were first independently classified using perimetry data (visual fields) into normal and abnormal (glaucomatous) groups. The ANN was trained using error backpropagation (n=89 samples) and the classification model was cross validated using one normal, and one abnormal sample. The entire data set (45 normals and 46 abnormals) was utilized for cross validation and each time the error rate of the training set was required to be less than 15%. The ANN gave an overall classification rate of 86.7%, with a specificity (correct normals) of 88.9% and a sensitivity (correct abnormals) of 84.4%. The ANN classification model, with only two hidden units, generalized well which indicates that the ONH measurements are useful for the detection of glaucoma.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207