Diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography for diagnosing glaucoma: secondary analyses of the GATE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To assess the diagnostic performance of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) data of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detecting glaucoma. METHODS: Secondary analyses of a prospective, multicentre diagnostic study (Glaucoma Automated Tests Evaluation (GATE)) referred to hospital eye services in the UK were conducted. We included data from 899 of 966 participants referred to hospital eye services with suspected glaucoma or ocular hypertension. We used both eyes' data and logistic regression-based receiver operator characteristics analysis to build a set of models to measure the sensitivity and specificity of the average and inferior quadrant RNFL thickness data of OCT. The reference standard was expert clinician examination including automated perimetry. The main outcome measures were sensitivity at 0.95 specificity and specificity at 0.95 sensitivity and the corresponding RNFL thickness thresholds. We explored the possibility of accuracy improvement by adding measures of within-eye and between-eye variation, scan quality, intraocular pressure (IOP) and age. RESULTS: Glaucoma was diagnosed in at least one eye in 17% of participants. Areas under the curve were between 0.83 and 0.88. When specificity was fixed at 0.95, the sensitivity was between 0.38 and 0.55, and the highest values were reached with models including the inferior quadrant rather than the average RNFL thickness. Fixing sensitivity at 0.95, the specificity was between 0.36 and 0.58. The addition of age, refractive error, IOP or within-subject variation did not improve the accuracy. CONCLUSION: RNFL thickness data of OCT can be used as a diagnostic test, but accuracy estimates remain moderate even in exploratory multivariable modelling of aiming to improve accuracy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".