2022
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1695441/v1
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Open-Source Image Preprocessing on Glaucoma and Glaucoma Suspect Fundus Image Differentiation with CNN

Abstract: Purpose: Investigating whether a Keras-based Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) model could detect glaucoma suspect cases from glaucoma cases without a visual field test and the effects of open-source data preprocessing in AI based glaucoma detection.Methods: 398 glaucoma and 378 glaucoma suspect cases approved by a glaucoma specialist ophthalmologist were enrolled in this study. Fundus images were retrieved from an optical coherence tomography device. An open-source graphic software was used to create traini… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Upon evaluating the combined data from all the datasets, the model demonstrated a noteworthy accuracy rate of 78%. In an independent study, Seker et al [13] developed a CNN model using Keras framework for the purpose of glaucoma classification. The fundus images were first subjected to preprocessing using the Irfanview graphic schemes prior to being inputted into the classification pipeline.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Upon evaluating the combined data from all the datasets, the model demonstrated a noteworthy accuracy rate of 78%. In an independent study, Seker et al [13] developed a CNN model using Keras framework for the purpose of glaucoma classification. The fundus images were first subjected to preprocessing using the Irfanview graphic schemes prior to being inputted into the classification pipeline.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Methods Accuracy Arslan et al [7] EfficientNet 94.88% Malik et al [8] Random Forest 86.63% Metin and Karasulu [9] ResNet50 94.00% Sarki et al [10] CNN 81.33% Hussain et al [11] Random Forest 96.89% Almansour et al [12] Fine-tuned VGG16 78.00% Seker et al [13] Keras-based CNN 85.00% Barai et al…”
Section: Authorsmentioning
confidence: 99%