SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

OCT-based optic neuropathy diagnosis using explainable and privacy-preserving machine learning.

Sci Rep · 2026-05-26

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-026-53687-xPMID: 42191754

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Glaucoma shares similarities with neurodegenerative conditions like dementia, Parkinson's disease, and ischaemic optic neuropathy, which affect ocular health. However, current studies exclude neurodegenerative cases in neuropathy diagnosis and rely on 'black box' models. To address this, we applied explainable machine learning to optical coherence tomography (OCT) data, integrating a privacy-preserving mechanism to create a reliable neuropathy diagnostic tool. OCT data from 268 glaucomatous, 334 normal, 56 dementia, 60 Parkinson's, and 93 ION eyes were analysed from a Sydney-based eye clinic. Spatial and frequency domain features were extracted, followed by feature selection and hierarchical classification. Model interpretability was enhanced using SHapley Additive exPlanations and partial dependency analysis, and privacy was preserved incorporating a differential privacy mechanism. A team of three clinicians, with 12, 11, and 6 years of experience, evaluated their performance on the same dataset for a human versus machine comparison, with the machine achieving an area under the curve of 0.90 for classifying neuropathy. Overall, machine outperformed clinicians, with 26.3% higher accuracy for neuropathy and 24.8% higher accuracy for glaucoma diagnosis. In conclusion, both non-explainable and explainable methods show promise in enhancing diagnostic support for clinical decision-making, with the privacy-preserving approach safeguarding data privacy.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.