Global Search

Search articles, concepts, and chapters

Eye (Lond)October 20231 citations

Classifying glaucoma exclusively with OCT: comparison of three clustering algorithms derived from machine learning.

Biarnés Marc, Ventura-Abreu Néstor, Rodríguez-Una Ignacio, Franquesa-Garcia Francesc, Batlle-Ferrando Sofia, Carrión-Donderis María Teresa, Castro-Domínguez Rafael, Millá Elena, Muniesa María Jesús, Pazos Marta


AI Summary

Machine learning (MBC) accurately classified glaucoma from healthy eyes using only OCT data (96.1% accuracy), showing promise for objective, automated glaucoma diagnosis.

Abstract

Background/aims: To objectively classify eyes as either healthy or glaucoma based exclusively on data provided by peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) and ganglion cell-inner plexiform (GCIPL) measurements derived from spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) using machine learning algorithms.

Methods

Three clustering methods (k-means, hierarchical cluster analysis -HCA- and model-based clustering-MBC-) were used separately to classify a training sample of 109 eyes as either healthy or glaucomatous using solely 13 SD-OCT parameters: pRNFL average and sector thicknesses and GCIPL average and minimum values together with the six macular wedge-shaped regions. Then, the best-performing algorithm was applied to an independent test sample of 102 eyes to derive close estimates of its actual performance (external validation).

Results

In the training sample, accuracy was 91.7% for MBC, 81.7% for k-means and 78.9% for HCA (p value = 0.02). The best MBC model was that in which subgroups were allowed to have variable volume and shape and equal orientation. The MBC algorithm in the independent test sample correctly classified 98 out of 102 cases for an overall accuracy of 96.1% (95% CI, 92.3-99.8%), with a sensitivity of 94.3 and 100% specificity. The accuracy for pRNFL was 92.2% (95% CI, 86.9-97.4%) and for GCIPL 98.0% (95% CI, 95.3-100%).

Conclusions

Clustering algorithms in general (and MBC in particular) seem promising methods to help discriminate between healthy and glaucomatous eyes using exclusively SD-OCT-derived parameters. Understanding the relative merits of one method over others may also provide insights into the nature of the disease.


MeSH Terms

HumansTomography, Optical CoherenceRetinal Ganglion CellsVisual FieldsGlaucomaMachine LearningAlgorithms

Key Concepts4

In a training sample of 109 eyes, the accuracy of model-based clustering (MBC) for classifying eyes as healthy or glaucomatous using 13 SD-OCT parameters (pRNFL average and sector thicknesses, GCIPL average and minimum values, and six macular wedge-shaped regions) was 91.7%, compared to 81.7% for k-means and 78.9% for hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) (p value = 0.02).

Comparative EffectivenessCross-sectionalCross-sectional studyn=109 eyesCh5Ch12

The best-performing model-based clustering (MBC) algorithm, which allowed subgroups to have variable volume and shape and equal orientation, correctly classified 98 out of 102 cases in an independent test sample of 102 eyes, achieving an overall accuracy of 96.1% (95% CI, 92.3-99.8%) for discriminating between healthy and glaucomatous eyes using exclusively SD-OCT-derived parameters.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional study with external validationn=102 eyesCh5Ch12

The model-based clustering (MBC) algorithm, when applied to an independent test sample of 102 eyes, demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.3% and a specificity of 100% for classifying eyes as healthy or glaucomatous based on SD-OCT-derived parameters.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional study with external validationn=102 eyesCh5Ch12

The accuracy of the model-based clustering (MBC) algorithm in classifying healthy versus glaucomatous eyes using peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) measurements from SD-OCT was 92.2% (95% CI, 86.9-97.4%), and using ganglion cell-inner plexiform (GCIPL) measurements was 98.0% (95% CI, 95.3-100%) in an independent test sample of 102 eyes.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional study with external validationn=102 eyesCh5Ch12

Is this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.