Effects of input data on the performance of a neural network in distinguishing normal and glaucomatous visual fields.

PURPOSE To compare the performance of neural networks for perimetric glaucoma diagnosis when using different types of data inputs: numerical threshold sensitivities, Statpac Total Deviation and Pattern Deviation, and probability scores based on Total and Pattern Deviation probability maps (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA). METHODS The results of SITA Standard visual field tests in 213 healthy subjects, 127 patients with glaucoma, 68 patients with concomitant glaucoma and cataract, and 41 patients with cataract only were included. The five different types of input data were entered into five identically designed artificial neural networks. Network thresholds were adjusted for each network. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to display the combinations of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS Input data in the form of Pattern Deviation probability scores gave the best results, with an area of 0.988 under the ROC curve, and were significantly better (P < 0.001) than threshold sensitivities and numerical Total Deviations and Total Deviation probability scores. The second best result was obtained with numerical Pattern Deviations with an area of 0.980. CONCLUSIONS The choice of type of data input had important effects on the performance of the neural networks in glaucoma diagnosis. Refined input data, based on Pattern Deviations, resulted in higher sensitivity and specificity than did raw threshold values. Neural networks may have high potential in the production of useful clinical tools for the classification of visual field tests.

[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.