Advanced

Comparison of clinicians and an artificial neural network regarding accuracy and certainty in performance of visual field assessment for the diagnosis of glaucoma.

Andersson, Sabina LU ; Heijl, Anders LU ; Bizios, Dimitrios LU and Bengtsson, Boel LU (2013) In Acta Ophthalmologica 91(5). p.413-417
Abstract
Purpose:

To compare clinicians and a trained artificial neural network (ANN) regarding accuracy and certainty of assessment of visual fields for the diagnosis of glaucoma.



Methods:

Thirty physicians with different levels of knowledge and experience in glaucoma management assessed 30-2 SITA Standard visual field printouts that included full Statpac information from 99 patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy and 66 healthy subjects. Glaucomatous eyes with perimetric mean deviation values worsethan -10 dB were not eligible. The fields were graded on a scale of 1-10, where 1 indicated healthy with absolute certaintyand 10 signified glaucoma; 5.5 was the cut-off between healthy and glaucoma. The same... (More)
Purpose:

To compare clinicians and a trained artificial neural network (ANN) regarding accuracy and certainty of assessment of visual fields for the diagnosis of glaucoma.



Methods:

Thirty physicians with different levels of knowledge and experience in glaucoma management assessed 30-2 SITA Standard visual field printouts that included full Statpac information from 99 patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy and 66 healthy subjects. Glaucomatous eyes with perimetric mean deviation values worsethan -10 dB were not eligible. The fields were graded on a scale of 1-10, where 1 indicated healthy with absolute certaintyand 10 signified glaucoma; 5.5 was the cut-off between healthy and glaucoma. The same fields were classified by a previously trained ANN. The ANN output was transformed into a linear scale that matched the scale used in the subjective assessments. Classification certainty was assessed using a classification error score.



Results:

Among the physicians, sensitivity ranged from 61% to 96% (mean 83%) and specificity from 59% to 100% (mean 90%). Our ANN achieved 93% sensitivity and 91% specificity, and it was significantly more sensitive than the physicians (p < 0.001) at a similar level of specificity. The ANN classification error score was equivalent to the top third scores of all physicians, and the ANN never indicated a high degree of certainty for any of its misclassified visual field tests.



Conclusion:

Our results indicate that a trained ANN performs at least as well as physicians in assessments of visual fields for the diagnosis of glaucoma. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Acta Ophthalmologica
volume
91
issue
5
pages
413 - 417
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • wos:000321626000022
  • pmid:22583841
  • scopus:84880257843
ISSN
1755-3768
DOI
10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02435.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
c060223d-8581-495e-be66-341a9e7a63e6 (old id 2608845)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583841?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2012-06-03 13:49:27
date last changed
2018-12-09 03:14:35
@article{c060223d-8581-495e-be66-341a9e7a63e6,
  abstract     = {Purpose: <br/><br>
To compare clinicians and a trained artificial neural network (ANN) regarding accuracy and certainty of assessment of visual fields for the diagnosis of glaucoma. <br/><br>
<br/><br>
Methods: <br/><br>
Thirty physicians with different levels of knowledge and experience in glaucoma management assessed 30-2 SITA Standard visual field printouts that included full Statpac information from 99 patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy and 66 healthy subjects. Glaucomatous eyes with perimetric mean deviation values worsethan -10 dB were not eligible. The fields were graded on a scale of 1-10, where 1 indicated healthy with absolute certaintyand 10 signified glaucoma; 5.5 was the cut-off between healthy and glaucoma. The same fields were classified by a previously trained ANN. The ANN output was transformed into a linear scale that matched the scale used in the subjective assessments. Classification certainty was assessed using a classification error score. <br/><br>
<br/><br>
Results: <br/><br>
Among the physicians, sensitivity ranged from 61% to 96% (mean 83%) and specificity from 59% to 100% (mean 90%). Our ANN achieved 93% sensitivity and 91% specificity, and it was significantly more sensitive than the physicians (p &lt; 0.001) at a similar level of specificity. The ANN classification error score was equivalent to the top third scores of all physicians, and the ANN never indicated a high degree of certainty for any of its misclassified visual field tests. <br/><br>
<br/><br>
Conclusion: <br/><br>
Our results indicate that a trained ANN performs at least as well as physicians in assessments of visual fields for the diagnosis of glaucoma.},
  author       = {Andersson, Sabina and Heijl, Anders and Bizios, Dimitrios and Bengtsson, Boel},
  issn         = {1755-3768},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {413--417},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {Acta Ophthalmologica},
  title        = {Comparison of clinicians and an artificial neural network regarding accuracy and certainty in performance of visual field assessment for the diagnosis of glaucoma.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02435.x},
  volume       = {91},
  year         = {2013},
}