2017 International Conference on Signals and Systems (ICSigSys) 2017
DOI: 10.1109/icsigsys.2017.7967046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benchmark data set for glaucoma detection with annotated cup to disc ratio

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reviewing these publications revealed many studies that have proposed benchmark datasets, and in a few cases benchmark tasks that meet our definition (see Section 2.1 for this definition), across a wide array of medical disciplines. For example, there have been benchmark datasets proposed for peripheral blood cell recognition (Acevedo et al, 2020), brain tumor image segmentation (Menze et al, 2014), tuberculosis identification from X-ray images (Jaeger et al, 2014), cervical cytology analysis (Zhang et al, 2019), glaucoma detection (Salam et al, 2017), ischemic stroke lesion segmentation from MRI images (Maier et al, 2017), seizure detection (Harati et al, 2014), human activity sensing and motion assessment (Kawaguchi et al, 2011;Ebert et al, 2017), voice disorder detection (Cesari et al, 2018), demographic trait detection from clinical notes (Feder et al, 2020), biomedical knowledge link prediction (Breit et al, 2020), molecular machine learning (Wu et al, 2018), ECG interpretation (Wagner et al, 2020), ICU predictions such as mortality, length of stay, patient decline, and phenotyping (Harutyunyan et al, 2019;Purushotham et al, 2018;Sheikhalishahi et al, 2020), neurodegenerative disorder diagnosis (Tagaris et al, 2018), prostate cancer survival prediction (Guinney et al, 2017), and several tasks from the UCI machine learning repository such as predicting chronic kidney disease, diabetes, breast cancer and more (Dua and Graff, 2017).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reviewing these publications revealed many studies that have proposed benchmark datasets, and in a few cases benchmark tasks that meet our definition (see Section 2.1 for this definition), across a wide array of medical disciplines. For example, there have been benchmark datasets proposed for peripheral blood cell recognition (Acevedo et al, 2020), brain tumor image segmentation (Menze et al, 2014), tuberculosis identification from X-ray images (Jaeger et al, 2014), cervical cytology analysis (Zhang et al, 2019), glaucoma detection (Salam et al, 2017), ischemic stroke lesion segmentation from MRI images (Maier et al, 2017), seizure detection (Harati et al, 2014), human activity sensing and motion assessment (Kawaguchi et al, 2011;Ebert et al, 2017), voice disorder detection (Cesari et al, 2018), demographic trait detection from clinical notes (Feder et al, 2020), biomedical knowledge link prediction (Breit et al, 2020), molecular machine learning (Wu et al, 2018), ECG interpretation (Wagner et al, 2020), ICU predictions such as mortality, length of stay, patient decline, and phenotyping (Harutyunyan et al, 2019;Purushotham et al, 2018;Sheikhalishahi et al, 2020), neurodegenerative disorder diagnosis (Tagaris et al, 2018), prostate cancer survival prediction (Guinney et al, 2017), and several tasks from the UCI machine learning repository such as predicting chronic kidney disease, diabetes, breast cancer and more (Dua and Graff, 2017).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, a limited number of glaucoma classified datasets are publically available. Consequently, a comparison of different glaucoma detection algorithms is somewhat challenging [38]. Nevertheless, most related works report an accuracy that is usually within the range from 85 to 95% [12].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this approach did not involve pathologic retinal images that are affecting the optic disc overall accuracy. Salam et al [21] proposed a unique method to classify fundus images into three categories: glaucoma patients, suspicious specimens, and nonglaucoma images. e method was tested on a local dataset containing 100 fundus images of 26 glaucoma patients and 74 nonglaucoma patients.…”
Section: Computer-based Generic Methods To Detect Glaucomamentioning
confidence: 99%