Comparison of Classifiers Applied to Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy Data

Journal:Methods of Information in Medicine
ISSN:0026-1270
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME0348
Issue:2008 (Vol. 47): Issue 1 2008
Pages:38-46

Comparison of Classifiers Applied to Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy Data

W. Adler, A. Peters, B. Lausen

Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

Summary

Objectives: Comparison of classification methods using data of one clinical study. The tuning of hyperparameters is assessed as part of the methods by nested-loop cross-validation. Methods: We assess the ability of 18 statistical and machine learning classifiers to detect glaucoma. The training data set is one case-control study consisting of confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy measurement values from 98 glaucoma patients and 98 healthy controls. We compare bootstrap estimates of the classification error by the Wilcoxon signed rank test and box-plots of a bootstrap distribution of the estimate. Results: The comparison of out-of-bag bootstrap estimators of classification errors is assessed by Spearman’s rank correlation, Wilcoxon signed rank tests and box-plots of a bootstrap distribution of the estimate. The classification methods random forests 15.4%, support vector machines 15.9%, bundling 16.3% to 17.8%, and penalized discriminant analysis 16.8% show the best results. Conclusions: Using nested-loop cross-validation we account for the tuning of hyperparameters and demonstrate the assessment of different classifiers. We recommend a block design of the bootstrap simulation to allow a statistical assessment of the bootstrap estimates of the misclassification error. The results depend on the data of the clinical study and the given size of the bootstrap sample.

Keywords

Classification, Glaucoma, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, R, machine learning by small data sets, parameter tuning

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME0348

You may also be interested in...

1.

W. Adler, T. Hothorn, B. Lausen

Methods of Information in Medicine 2004 43 2: 150-155

2.

A. Peters(1), B. Lausen(1), G. Michelson(2), O. Gefeller(1)

Methods of Information in Medicine 2003 42 1: 99-103

3.

Free PDF of English version

A. Steinmetz, G. Oechtering

Tierärztliche Praxis Supplement 2008 36 1: 63-66



Articles

You've 16 Article(s) in your Basket.