↓ Skip to main content

Using Deep Learning for the Classification of Images Generated by Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Deep Learning for the Classification of Images Generated by Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00638
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nidan Qiao

Abstract

Multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) is used for assessing visual functions in patients with pituitary adenomas. Images generated by mfVEP facilitate evaluation of visual pathway integrity. However, lack of healthy controls, and high time consumption for analyzing data restrict the use of mfVEP in clinical settings; moreover, low signal-noise-ratio (SNR) in some images further increases the difficulty of analysis. I hypothesized that automated workflow with deep learning could facilitate analysis and correct classification of these images. A total of 9,120 images were used in this study. The automated workflow included clustering ideal and noisy images, denoising images using an autoencoder algorithm, and classifying normal and abnormal images using a convolutional neural network. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of the initial algorithm (built on all the images) was 0.801 with an accuracy of 79.9%. The model built on denoised images had an AUC of 0.795 (95% CI: 0.773-0.817) and an accuracy of 78.6% (95% CI: 76.8-80.0%). The model built on ideal images had an AUC of 0.985 (95% CI: 0.976-0.994) and an accuracy of 94.6% (95% CI: 93.6-95.6%). The ensemble model achieved an AUC of 0.908 and an accuracy of 90.8% (sensitivity: 94.3%; specificity: 87.7%). The automated workflow for analyzing mfVEP plots achieved high AUC and accuracy, which suggests its possible clinical use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Computer Science 1 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Neuroscience 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 5 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,529,173
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#9,028
of 12,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,846
of 331,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#241
of 315 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 315 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.