Effects of input data on the performance of a neural network in distinguishing normal and glaucomatous visual fields.
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] G. Lindgren,et al. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.
[2] David O. Harrington,et al. The Visual Fields: Text and Atlas of Clinical Perimetry , 1989 .
[3] J A Swets,et al. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.
[4] Robert N Weinreb,et al. Comparing machine learning classifiers for diagnosing glaucoma from standard automated perimetry. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[5] Martin Fodslette Møller,et al. A scaled conjugate gradient algorithm for fast supervised learning , 1993, Neural Networks.
[6] Balwantray C. Chauhan,et al. A cluster analysis for threshold perimetry , 2005, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.
[7] M H Goldbaum,et al. Interpretation of automated perimetry for glaucoma by neural network. , 1994, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[8] Anders Heijl,et al. Essential perimetry: The field analyzer primer , 2002 .
[9] M. G. Bucci. Glaucoma: Decision Making in Therapy , 1996 .
[10] B. Bengtsson,et al. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? , 2000, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[11] L Brigatti,et al. Neural networks to identify glaucoma with structural and functional measurements. , 1996, American journal of ophthalmology.
[12] A Heijl,et al. Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation. , 1992, Archives of ophthalmology.
[13] C. Johnson,et al. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. , 1993, Archives of ophthalmology.
[14] J Katz,et al. Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. , 1991, Archives of ophthalmology.
[15] J. Wild,et al. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma , 1989, Acta ophthalmologica.
[16] M. Stone. Cross‐Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions , 1976 .
[17] David Keating,et al. Visual field interpretation with a personal computer based neural network , 1994, Eye.
[18] B. Bengtsson,et al. Early Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma: A Study of Eyes Developing Field Loss , 1996 .
[19] A Heijl,et al. Perimetric probability maps to separate change caused by glaucoma from that caused by cataract. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.
[20] E. Blumenthal,et al. Misleading statistical calculations in far-advanced glaucomatous visual field loss. , 2003, Ophthalmology.
[21] B. Bengtsson,et al. Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC. , 1999, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.
[22] E. DeLong,et al. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.
[23] J Katz,et al. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. , 1988, Archives of ophthalmology.
[24] B. Bengtsson,et al. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. , 1996, Archives of ophthalmology.
[25] A Heijl,et al. Spatial analyses of glaucomatous visual fields; a comparison with traditional visual field indices , 1992, Acta ophthalmologica.
[26] J Katz,et al. Neural networks for visual field analysis: how do they compare with other algorithms? , 1999, Journal of glaucoma.