Machine Learning Techniques, Detection and Prediction of Glaucoma– A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, glaucoma is the most common factor in both permanent blindness and impairment. However, the majority of patients are unaware they have the condition, and clinical practise continues to face difficulties in detecting glaucoma progression using current technology. An expert ophthalmologist examines the retinal portion of the eye to see how the glaucoma is progressing. This method is quite time-consuming, and doing it manually takes more time. Therefore, using deep learning and machine learning techniques, this problem can be resolved by automatically diagnosing glaucoma. This systematic review involved a comprehensive analysis of various automated glaucoma prediction and detection techniques. More than 100 articles on Machine learning (ML) techniques with understandable graph and tabular column are reviewed considering summery, method, objective, performance, advantages and disadvantages. In the ML techniques such as support vector machine (SVM), and K-means. Fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm are widely used in glaucoma detection and prediction. Through the systematic review, the most accurate technique to detect and predict glaucoma can be determined which can be utilized for future betterment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it