An Application of Machine Learning Techniques for the Classification of Glaucomatous Progression

  • Mihai Lazarescu
  • Andrew Turpin
  • Svetha Venkatesh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2396)

Abstract

This paper presents an application of machine learning to the problem of classifying patients with glaucoma into one of two classes:stable and progressive glaucoma. The novelty of the work is the use of new features for the data analysis combined with machine learning techniques to classify the medical data. The paper describes the new features and the results of using decision trees to separate stable and progressive cases. Furthermore, we show the results of using an incremental learning algorithm for tracking stable and progressive cases over time. In both cases we used a dataset of progressive and stable glaucoma patients obtained from a glaucoma clinic.

Keywords

Machine Learn Technique Time Instance Incremental Learning Concept Drift Stable Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Broadway, M. Nicolela, and S. Drance. Optic disk appearances in primary open-angle glaucoma. Survey of Ophthalmology, Supplement 1:223–243, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Clark. Machine learning: Techniques and recent developments. In A. R. Mirzai, editor, Artificial Intelligence: Concepts and Applications in Engineering, pages 65–93. Chapman and Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Dybowski, P. Weller, R. Chang, and V. Gant. Prediction of outcome in critically ill patients using artificial neural networks synthesised by genetic algorithms. Lancet, 347:1146–1150, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Goldbaum, P. Sample, K. Chan et.al. Comparing machine learning classifiers for diagnosing glaucoma from standard automated perimetry. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 43:162–169, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Katz, A. Sommer, D.E. Gaasterland, and D.R. Anderson. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Archives of Ophthomology, 109:1684–1689, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Lazarescu, S. Venkatesh, and G. West. Incremental learning with forgetting (i.l.f.). In Proceedings of ICML-99 Workshop on Machine Learning in Computer Vision, June 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Lazarescu, S. Venkatesh, G. West, and H.H. Bui. Tracking concept drift robustly. In Proceedings of AI2001, pages 38–43, February 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.G.D. Spry, C.A. Johnson, A.M. McKendrick, and A. Turpin Determining pro-gressiong in glaucoma using visual fields. In Proceedings of the 5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PAKDD2001, April 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Turpin, E. Frank, M. Hall, I. Witten, and C.A. Johnson. Determining pro-gressiong in glaucoma using visual fields. In Proceedings of the 5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PAKDD2001, April 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.J. Wang, P. Mitchell, and W. Smith. Is there an association between migraine headache and open-angle glaucoma? Findings from the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology, 104(10):1714–9, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Weber, and H. Ulrich. A perimetric nerve fibre bundle map. International Ophthalmology, 15:193–200, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mihai Lazarescu
    • 1
  • Andrew Turpin
    • 1
  • Svetha Venkatesh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations