Machine learning classifiers detect subtle field defects in eyes of HIV individuals - PubMed (original) (raw)

. 2007:105:111-8; discussion 119-20.

Affiliations

Machine learning classifiers detect subtle field defects in eyes of HIV individuals

Igor Kozak et al. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2007.

Abstract

Purpose: To test the following hypotheses: (1) eyes from patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have retinal damage that causes subtle field defects, (2) sensitive machine learning classifiers (MLCs) can use these field defects to distinguish fields in HIV patients and normal subjects, and (3) the subtle field defects form meaningful patterns. We have applied supervised MLCs--support vector machine (SVM) and relevance vector machine (RVM)--to determine if visual fields in patients with HIV differ from normal visual fields in HIV-negative controls.

Methods: HIV-positive patients without visible retinopathy were divided into 2 groups: (1) 38 high-CD4 (H), 48.5 +/- 8.5 years, whose CD4 counts were never below 100; and (2) 35 low-CD4 (L), 46.1 +/- 8.5 years, whose CD4 counts were below 100 at least 6 months. The normal group (N) had 52 age-matched HIV-negative individuals, 46.3 +/- 7.8 years. Standard automated perimetry (SAP) with the 24-2 program was recorded from one eye per individual per group. SVM and RVM were trained and tested with cross-validation to distinguish H from N and L from N. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve permitted comparison of performance of MLCs. Improvement in performance and identification of subsets of the most important features were sought with feature selection by backward elimination.

Results: SVM and RVM distinguished L from N (L: AUROC = 0.804, N: 0.500, P = .0002 with SVM and L: .800, P = .0002 with RVM) and H from N (H: 0.683, P = .022 with SVM and H: 0.670, P = .038 with RVM). With best-performing subsets derived by backward elimination, SVM and RVM each distinguished L from N (L: 0.843, P < .00005 with SVM and L: 0.870, P < .00005 with RVM) and H from N (H: 0.695, P = .015 with SVM and H: 0.726, P = .007 with RVM). The most important field locations in low-CD4 individuals were mostly superior near the blind spot. The location of important field locations was uncertain in high-CD4 eyes.

Conclusions: This study has confirmed that low-CD4 eyes have visual field defects and retinal damage. Ranking located important field locations superiorly near the blind spot, implying damage to the retina inferiorly near the optic disc. Though most fields appear normal in high-CD4 eyes, SVM and RVM were sufficiently sensitive to distinguish these eyes from normal eyes with SAP. The location of these defects is not yet defined. These results also validate the use of sensitive MLC techniques to uncover test differences not discernible by human experts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

Receiver operating characteristic curves for support vector machine, relevance vector machine, high CD4, and low CD4. Within each graph are curves generated for machine learning classifiers trained to distinguish HIV eyes from normal eyes using all 52 field locations, the subset with peak performance, and the 10-location feature set; the chance curve is the attempt to learn classes with equivalent data.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

Performance curves measuring area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) for each size subset of near optimal combinations of features generated by backward elimination from all 52 features down to 1 feature. The upper, dashed blue curve averages curves derived from standard backward elimination, which graphs the AUROC of the selected set for each set size. The peak (blue arrow) is the subset size with the best performance. The lower, continuous red curve averages the results after the extra step of external cross-validation to give a more conservative estimate of performance at each step of backward elimination. In the low-CD4 eyes, performance did not improve with extra-validated feature sets larger than the set with 4 dependent features. In high-CD4 eyes, small subsets performed poorly and performance increased up to the full 52-location feature set.

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 3

Plot of the 10 best features in combination, from backward elimination. In the high-CD4 eyes, small sets did not perform well, indicating uncertain distribution of the top features (small numbers). In the low-CD4 eyes, feature sets larger than 4 did not improve performance, indicating the top 4 field locations (large numbers) were strong predictors of HIV.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, White H, et al. Interpretation of automated perimetry for glaucoma by neural network. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:3362–3373. - PubMed
    1. Mutlukan E, Keating K. Visual field interpretation with a personal computer based neural network. Eye. 1994;8:321–323. - PubMed
    1. Brigatti L, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Weitzman M, Caprioli J. Automatic detection of glaucomatous visual field progression with neural networks. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:725–728. - PubMed
    1. Sample PA, Boden C, Zhang Z, et al. Unsupervised machine learning with independent component analysis to identify areas of progression in glaucomatous visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:3684–3692. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brigatti L, Hoffman BA, Caprioli J. Neural networks to identify glaucoma with structural and functional measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;121:511–521. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources