Using machine learning classifiers to identify glaucomatous change earlier in standard visual fields.

PURPOSE To compare the ability of several machine learning classifiers to predict development of abnormal fields at follow-up in ocular hypertensive (OHT) eyes that had normal visual fields in baseline examination. METHODS The visual fields of 114 eyes of 114 patients with OHT with four or more visual field tests with standard automated perimetry over three or more years and for whom stereophotographs were available were assessed. The mean (+/-SD) number of visual field tests was 7.89 +/- 3.04. The mean number of years covered (+/-SD) was 5.92 +/- 2.34 (range, 2.81-11.77). Fields were classified as normal or abnormal based on Statpac-like methods (Humphrey Instruments, Dublin, CA) and by several machine learning classifiers. The machine learning classifiers were two types of support vector machine (SVM), a mixture of Gaussian (MoG) classifier, a constrained MoG, and a mixture of generalized Gaussian (MGG). Specificity was set to 96% for all classifiers, using data from 94 normal eyes evaluated longitudinally. Specificity cutoffs required confirmation of abnormality. RESULTS Thirty-two percent (36/114) of the eyes converted to abnormal fields during follow-up based on the Statpac-like methods. All 36 were identified by at least one machine classifier. In nearly all cases, the machine learning classifiers predicted the confirmed abnormality, on average, 3.92 +/- 0.55 years earlier than traditional Statpac-like methods. CONCLUSIONS Machine learning classifiers can learn complex patterns and trends in data and adapt to create a decision surface without the constraints imposed by statistical classifiers. This adaptation allowed the machine learning classifiers to identify abnormality in visual field converts much earlier than the traditional methods.

[1]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  CONFIRMATION OF VISUAL FIELD ABNORMALITIES IN THE OCULAR HYPERTENSION TREATMENT STUDY (OHTS) , 1999 .

[2]  J. Platt Sequential Minimal Optimization : A Fast Algorithm for Training Support Vector Machines , 1998 .

[3]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning internal representations by error propagation , 1986 .

[4]  Federico Girosi,et al.  Training support vector machines: an application to face detection , 1997, Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[5]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  An Introduction to Variational Methods for Graphical Models , 1999, Machine Learning.

[6]  F. Fitzke,et al.  Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. , 1996, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[7]  Richard K. Morgan,et al.  Statpac 2 glaucoma change probability. , 1991, Archives of ophthalmology.

[8]  Michael I. Jordan Learning in Graphical Models , 1999, NATO ASI Series.

[9]  William Nick Street,et al.  Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis Via Linear Programming , 1995, Oper. Res..

[10]  Biing-Hwang Juang,et al.  Fundamentals of speech recognition , 1993, Prentice Hall signal processing series.

[11]  J L Keltner,et al.  Confirmation of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. , 2000, Archives of ophthalmology.

[12]  M. Kass,et al.  The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: design and baseline description of the participants. , 1999, Archives of ophthalmology.

[13]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[14]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Inductive learning algorithms and representations for text categorization , 1998, CIKM '98.

[15]  Vladimir N. Vapnik,et al.  The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory , 2000, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[16]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[17]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  ICA Mixture Models for Unsupervised Classification of Non-Gaussian Classes and Automatic Context Switching in Blind Signal Separation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[18]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  Statistical learning theory , 1998 .

[19]  P A Sample,et al.  The Loss of Visual Function in Glaucoma , 2000, Seminars in ophthalmology.

[20]  Jim Blythe,et al.  Decision-Theoretic Planning , 1999, AI Mag..

[21]  A Heijl,et al.  Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation. , 1992, Archives of ophthalmology.

[22]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  Comparing machine learning classifiers for diagnosing glaucoma from standard automated perimetry. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[23]  Chris A Johnson,et al.  Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. , 2002, Survey of ophthalmology.

[24]  Douglas R. Anderson Automated Static Perimetry , 1992 .

[26]  A Heijl,et al.  Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[27]  S. Sathiya Keerthi,et al.  A fast iterative nearest point algorithm for support vector machine classifier design , 2000, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst..

[28]  S. Hyakin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1994 .

[29]  P. Sample Short-wavelength automated perimetry: it’s role in the clinic and for understanding ganglion cell function , 2000, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[30]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[31]  Tomaso A. Poggio,et al.  Machine Learning, Machine Vision, and the Brain , 1999, AI Mag..

[32]  Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. , 1994, Ophthalmology.

[33]  Jayanta Basak,et al.  A connectionist model for corner detection in binary and gray images , 2000, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst..

[34]  Harris Drucker,et al.  Learning algorithms for classification: A comparison on handwritten digit recognition , 1995 .