Automated algorithms combining structure and function outperform general ophthalmologists in diagnosing glaucoma.

<h4>Purpose</h4>To test the ability of machine learning classifiers (MLCs) using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) parameters to discriminate between healthy and glaucomatous individuals, and to compare it to the diagnostic ability of the combined structure-function index (CSFI), general ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional prospective study.<h4>Methods</h4>Fifty eight eyes of 58 patients with early to moderate glaucoma (median value of the mean deviation = -3.44 dB; interquartile range, -6.0 to -2.4 dB) and 66 eyes of 66 healthy individuals underwent OCT and SAP tests. The diagnostic accuracy (area under the ROC curve-AUC) of 10 MLCs was compared to those obtained with the CSFI, 3 general ophthalmologists and 3 glaucoma specialists exposed to the same OCT and SAP data.<h4>Results</h4>The AUCs obtained with MLCs ranged from 0.805 (Classification Tree) to 0.931 (Radial Basis Function Network, RBF). The sensitivity at 90% specificity ranged from 51.6% (Classification Tree) to 82.8% (Bagging, Multilayer Perceptron and Support Vector Machine Gaussian). The CSFI had a sensitivity of 79.3% at 90% specificity, and the highest AUC (0.948). General ophthalmologists and glaucoma specialists' grading had sensitivities of 66.2% and 83.8% at 90% specificity, and AUCs of 0.879 and 0.921, respectively. RBF (the best MLC), the CSFI, and glaucoma specialists showed significantly higher AUCs than that obtained by general ophthalmologists (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences between the AUCs obtained by RBF, the CSFI, and glaucoma specialists (P>0.25).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our findings suggest that both MLCs and the CSFI can be helpful in clinical practice and effectively improve glaucoma diagnosis in the primary eye care setting, when there is no glaucoma specialist available.

Abstract licence: CC BY

40 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.