Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Automatic detection of glaucoma via fundus imag...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Automatic detection of glaucoma via fundus imaging and artificial intelligence: A review

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineReview articlepeer-review

Published
  • Lauren J. Coan
  • Bryan M. Williams
  • Venkatesh Krishna Adithya
  • Swati Upadhyaya
  • Ala Alkafri
  • Silvester Czanner
  • Rengaraj Venkatesh
  • Colin E. Willoughby
  • Srinivasan Kavitha
  • Gabriela Czanner
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>1/01/2023
<mark>Journal</mark>Survey of Ophthalmology
Issue number1
Volume68
Number of pages25
Pages (from-to)17-41
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date26/11/22
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible vision impairment globally, and cases are continuously rising worldwide. Early detection is crucial, allowing timely intervention that can prevent further visual field loss. To detect glaucoma an examination of the optic nerve head via fundus imaging can be performed, at the center of which is the assessment of the optic cup and disc boundaries. Fundus imaging is noninvasive and low-cost; however, image examination relies on subjective, time-consuming, and costly expert assessments. A timely question to ask is: “Can artificial intelligence mimic glaucoma assessments made by experts?” Specifically, can artificial intelligence automatically find the boundaries of the optic cup and disc (providing a so-called segmented fundus image) and then use the segmented image to identify glaucoma with high accuracy? We conducted a comprehensive review on artificial intelligence-enabled glaucoma detection frameworks that produce and use segmented fundus images and summarized the advantages and disadvantages of such frameworks. We identified 36 relevant papers from 2011 to 2021 and 2 main approaches: 1) logical rule-based frameworks, based on a set of rules; and 2) machine learning/statistical modeling-based frameworks. We critically evaluated the state-of-art of the 2 approaches, identified gaps in the literature and pointed at areas for future research.