47
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Machine learning in glaucoma: a bibliometric analysis comparing computer science and medical fields’ research

ORCID Icon, &
Pages 511-515 | Received 11 Mar 2021, Accepted 03 Aug 2021, Published online: 12 Aug 2021

References

  • Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262–267.
  • Rn W, Aung T, Fa M. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA. 2014;311(18):1901–1911.
  • NICE guideline. Glaucoma: diagnosis and management [Internet]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng81
  • AAO PPP Glaucoma Committee, Hoskins Center for Quality Eye Care. Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Suspect PPP 2020 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.aao.org/preferred-practice-pattern/primary-open-angle-glaucoma-suspect-ppp
  • Hagiwara Y, Koh JEW, Tan JH, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of glaucoma using fundus images: a review. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2018;165:1–12.
  • Ran AR, Cheung CY, Wang X, et al. Detection of glaucomatous optic neuropathy with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: a retrospective training and validation deep-learning analysis. Lancet Digit Health. 2019;1(4):e172–e182.
  • Medeiros FA. Deep learning in glaucoma: progress, but still lots to do. Lancet Digit Health. 2019;1(4):e151–e152.
  • Wiens J, Shenoy ES. Machine learning for healthcare: on the verge of a major shift in healthcare epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(1):149–153.
  • Dong Y, Liu Y, Yu J, et al. Mapping research trends in diabetic retinopathy from 2010 to 2019. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(3):e23981.
  • Wang Q, Waltman L. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of web of science and scopus. J Informetr. 2016;10(2):347–364.
  • Li J, Bender L, Shaffer J, et al. Prevalence and Onset of Pediatric Sickle Cell Retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(7):1000–1006.
  • Guo Y, Hao Z, Zhao S, et al. Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: bibliometric Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(7):e18228.
  • AlRyalat SA. Machine learning on glaucoma: the missing point. Eye. 2021;1–2.
  • Kolachalama VB, Garg PS. Machine learning and medical education. npj Digital Medicine. 2018;1(1):1–3.
  • Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine Learning in Medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1347–1358.
  • Ibraheam M, Gebali F, Li KF, et al. Animal Species Recognition Using Deep Learning. In: Barolli L, Amato F, Moscato F, editors. Adv Inf Netw Appl. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. 523–532.
  • Rokošná J, Babič F, Majnarić LT, et al. Cooperation Between Data Analysts and Medical Experts: a Case Study. In: Holzinger A, Kieseberg P, Tjoa AM, editors. Mach Learn Knowl Extr. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. 173–190.
  • Hekler A, Kather JN, Krieghoff-Henning E, et al. Effects of label noise on deep learning-based skin cancer classification. Front Med [Internet]. 2020 [ cited 2021 Mar 11];7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.00177/full
  • Krause J, Gulshan V, Rahimy E, et al. Grader variability and the importance of reference standards for evaluating machine learning models for diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(8):1264–1272.
  • Choudhari NS, Neog A, Fudnawala V, et al. Cupped disc with normal intraocular pressure: the long road to avoid misdiagnosis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59(6):491–497.
  • Detorakis E, Symvoulakis E. Over-diagnosed glaucoma: possible consequences for patients and health care services. Hippokratia. 2011;15:381–382.
  • Celi LA, Citi L, Ghassemi M, et al. The PLOS ONE collection on machine learning in health and biomedicine: towards open code and open data. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(1):e0210232.
  • Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, et al. Comparisons of citations in web of science, scopus, and google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302(10):1092–1096.
  • AlRyalat SA, Abukahel A, Elubous KA. Randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology: a bibliometric study. F1000Res. 2019;8:1718.
  • AlRyalat SA, Malkawi LW, Momani SM. Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. JoVE. 2019 Oct; 24(152):e58494.
  • Hoy MB. Rise of the rxivs: how preprint servers are changing the publishing process. Med Ref Serv Q. 2020;39(1):84–89.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.