2020
DOI: 10.1109/jbhi.2019.2949075
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clinical Interpretable Deep Learning Model for Glaucoma Diagnosis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
54
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
54
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In terms of AUC, and SE our method showed significant performance gain than all the comparative approaches. Liao et al [70] also reported the performance of their method using D c measure, where our method also outperformed their work. Moreover, our technique can easily run on CPU or GPU machines and each image test time is 0.9 s which is faster than the work of Ramani et al [39], which take 1.49 s. Hence, based on the result it can be concluded that our method is also equally reliable for the glaucoma detection.…”
Section: Comparative Studiesmentioning
confidence: 51%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In terms of AUC, and SE our method showed significant performance gain than all the comparative approaches. Liao et al [70] also reported the performance of their method using D c measure, where our method also outperformed their work. Moreover, our technique can easily run on CPU or GPU machines and each image test time is 0.9 s which is faster than the work of Ramani et al [39], which take 1.49 s. Hence, based on the result it can be concluded that our method is also equally reliable for the glaucoma detection.…”
Section: Comparative Studiesmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…Hence, the performance comparison reflects that our method reliably detects the DME. For glaucoma detection, we compared our method against the works of Liao et al [70], Chen et al [71], Xu et al [72], Li et al [73], Bajwa et al [37], Ramani et al [39], Parakash et al [74] and Krishna et al [12]. The comparison results using ORIGA, HRF, and DR HAGIS datasets are reported in Table 9.…”
Section: Comparative Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These results are particularly encouraging as any screening program for glaucoma will need to demonstrate a fairly high specificity to minimize the rate of false positive referrals while ensuring that those with functional vision loss are detected. Thus, these and other studies 25,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] have demonstrated that there is a viable potential for medical systems to harness existing teleretinal or other telehealth infrastructure for glaucoma screening if the review of such imaging becomes feasibly automated through DL in the future. Three convolutional layers, one max-pooling layer, and one full connection layer.…”
Section: Deep Learning In Color Fundus Photographsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A majority of the studies included in this review utilized CFPs for training and testing the DL algorithm for the diagnosis of glaucoma. 25,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] The details of each study with CFPs is summarized in Table 1. Fundus photography has already been successfully incorporated into teleophthalmology programs to detect other eye diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy.…”
Section: Deep Learning In Color Fundus Photographsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They used the proposed model to explain the importance of each diagnostic product, medication, and treatment procedure. m) Evidence Activation Mapping (EMANet): Lia et al [123] proposed a CNN based model for glaucoma diagnosis named as EAMNet. The proposed architecture not only able to detect the diseases but also show transparency by highlighting the affected area detected by the system.…”
Section: D) Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (Lime)mentioning
confidence: 99%