4.6 Article

Validating the Usefulness of the Random Forests Classifier to Diagnose Early Glaucoma With Optical Coherence Tomography

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 174, Issue -, Pages 95-103

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.11.001

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY (JST)-CREST
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [26462679]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26462679] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To validate the usefulness of the Random Forests classifier to diagnose early glaucoma with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT). METHODS: DESIGN: Comparison of diagnostic algorithms. SETTING: Multiple institutional practices. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Training dataset included 94 eyes of 94 open-angle glaucoma (OAG) patients and 84 eyes of 84 normal subjects and testing dataset included 114 eyes of 114 OAG patients and 82 eyes of 82 normal subjects. In both groups, OAG eyes with mean deviation (MD) values better than 5.0 dB were included. OBSERVATION PROCEDURE: Using the training dataset, classifiers were built' to discriminate between glaucoma and normal eyes using 84 OCT measurements using the Random Forests method, multiple logistic regression models based on backward or bidirectional stepwise model selection, a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression (LASSO) model, and a Ridge regression model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: With the testing data, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROC) with the Random Forests method (93.0%) was significantly (P < .05) larger than those with other models of the stepwise model selections (71.9%), LASSO model (89.6%), and Ridge model (89.2%). CONCLUSION: It is useful to analyze multiple SDOCT parameters concurrently using the Random Forests method to diagnose glaucoma in early stages. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available