Development of a Neural Network to Predict Optimal IOP Reduction in Glaucoma Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glaucoma management relies on lowering intraocular pressure (IOP), but determining the target reduction at presentation is challenging, particularly in normal-tension glaucoma (NTG). We developed and internally validated a neural network regression model using retrospective clinical data from Qiu et al. (2015), including 270 patients (118 with NTG). A single-layer artificial neural network with five nodes was trained in MATLAB R2024b using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. Inputs included demographic, refractive, structural, and functional parameters, with IOP reduction as the output. Data were split into 65% training, 15% validation, and 20% testing, with training repeated 10 times. Model performance was strong and consistent (average RMSE: 1.90 ± 0.29 training, 2.18 ± 0.34 validation, 2.11 ± 0.30 testing; Pearson's r: 0.92 ± 0.02, 0.88 ± 0.02, 0.88 ± 0.04). The best-performing model achieved RMSEs of 1.57, 2.90, and 1.77 with r values of 0.93, 0.91, and 0.93, respectively. Feature ablation revealed significant contributions from IOP, axial length, CCT, diagnosis, VCDR, spherical equivalent, mean deviation, and laterality. This study demonstrates that a simple neural network can reliably predict individualized IOP reduction targets, supporting personalized glaucoma management and improved outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".