Hybrid Deep Learning on Single Wide-field Optical Coherence tomography Scans Accurately Classifies Glaucoma Suspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Existing summary statistics based upon optical coherence tomographic (OCT) scans and/or visual fields (VFs) are suboptimal for distinguishing between healthy and glaucomatous eyes in the clinic. This study evaluates the extent to which a hybrid deep learning method (HDLM), combined with a single wide-field OCT protocol, can distinguish eyes previously classified as either healthy suspects or mild glaucoma. METHODS: In total, 102 eyes from 102 patients, with or suspected open-angle glaucoma, had previously been classified by 2 glaucoma experts as either glaucomatous (57 eyes) or healthy/suspects (45 eyes). The HDLM had access only to information from a single, wide-field (9×12 mm) swept-source OCT scan per patient. Convolutional neural networks were used to extract rich features from maps derived from these scans. Random forest classifier was used to train a model based on these features to predict the existence of glaucomatous damage. The algorithm was compared against traditional OCT and VF metrics. RESULTS: The accuracy of the HDLM ranged from 63.7% to 93.1% depending upon the input map. The retinal nerve fiber layer probability map had the best accuracy (93.1%), with 4 false positives, and 3 false negatives. In comparison, the accuracy of the OCT and 24-2 and 10-2 VF metrics ranged from 66.7% to 87.3%. The OCT quadrants analysis had the best accuracy (87.3%) of the metrics, with 4 false positives and 9 false negatives. CONCLUSIONS: The HDLM protocol outperforms standard OCT and VF clinical metrics in distinguishing healthy suspect eyes from eyes with early glaucoma. It should be possible to further improve this algorithm and with improvement it might be useful for screening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".