GLEAM: A Multimodal Imaging Dataset and HAMM for Glaucoma Classification
Authors: Jiao Wang, Chi Liu, Yiying Zhang, Hongchen Luo, Zhifen Guo, Ying Hu, Ke Xu, Jing Zhou, +3 more
Organizations: College of the Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China · Department of Ophthalmology, Shenyang Fourth People’s Hospital, Shenyang 110000, China
We propose glaucoma lesion evaluation and analysis with multimodal imaging (GLEAM), the first publicly available tri-modal glaucoma dataset comprising scanning laser ophthalmoscopy fundus images, circumpapillary OCT images, and visual field pattern deviation maps, annotated with four disease stages, enabling effective exploitation of multimodal complementary information and facilitating accurate diagnosis and treatment across disease stages. To effectively integrate cross-modal information, we propose hierarchical attentive masked modeling (HAMM) for multimodal glaucoma classification. Our framework employs hierarchical attentive encoders and light decoders to focus cross-modal representation learning on the encoder.
Figures & tables
Dataset name
Year
Quantity
Imaging modalities
Classification
Public
ORIGA [ 7 ]
2010
650
Fundus
NG/G
✓
Drishti-GS [ 8 ]
2014
101
Fundus
NG/G
✓
Refuge [ 9 ]
2018
1200
Fundus
NG/G
✓
HDV1 [ 10 ]
2018
1542
Fundus
NG/EaG/PG
✓
ACRIMA [ 11 ]
2019
705
Fundus
NG/G
✓
Harvard-GDP [ 12 ]
2023
1000
RNFL
NG/G
✓
TABLE I : Overview of major glaucoma datasets for classification. (NG: Non-glaucoma, EaG: Early Glaucoma, InG: Intermediate Glaucoma, AdG: Advanced Glaucoma , PG: Progressive Glaucoma, NPG: Non-progressive Glaucoma. )
Fig. 1 : The detail of ophthalmic data, including (a) SLO, OCT, and VF examinations (b) EMR documented by ophthalmologists.
Agreement Type
Expert 1
Expert 2
Expert 3
Intra-grader Agreement
98.25
97.68
97.42
Expert 1 vs. Expert 2
95.81
-
-
Expert 1 vs. Expert 3
96.37
-
-
Expert 2 vs. Expert 3
-
95.59
-
TABLE II : Inter- and Intra-grader Agreement via Quadratic Weighted Cohen’s Kappa (%)
Fig. 2 : GLEAM dataset character, including (a) distributions of GLEAM, and (b) examples of GLEAM. We add lines for splitting the optic disc/optic cup and the thickness of the RNFL to more visually show the gaps in the images of different progressions of glaucoma.
Fig. 3 : The architecture of HAMM. Stage one is the masked autoencoder pretraining task to train a better feature representation, and stage two is the classification task to train the final classification model. The MCGA module is designed to model the multimodal information between different images when pretraining and classification. For clarity, token notations (e.g cf , v^f , vf ) are shown for a single modality, though the same applies to all.
Method
Pre-train
Acc
F1
AUROC
QWK
Param
FLOPs
ResNet50 [ 50 ]
-
76.75 ± 1.47
66.84 ± 2.60
89.95 ± 0.27
85.88 ± 0.76
83.12
12.41
ResNet50 [ 50 ]
TL
77.67 ± 0.86
70.19 ± 0.93
92.14 ± 1.81
87.00 ± 0.55
83.12
12.41
ViT-S [ 54 ]
TL
77.75 ± 1.52
69.62 ± 3.79
91.79 ± 0.48
88.03 ± 0.64
65.21
12.75
ConvNeXt-T [ 55 ]
TL
79.00 ± 0.76**
71.58 ± 1.32
91.87 ± 0.77
87.83 ± 0.72
85.20
13.39
MHCA [ 40 ]
TL
78.16 ± 0.63
69.97 ± 3.20
92.28 ± 0.27
87.14 ± 0.75
248.29
17.63
DRIFA-Net [ 41 ]
TL
77.83 ± 0.86*
69.70 ± 1.96
92.42 ± 0.10
86.75 ± 0.57
931.31
88.48
TABLE III : Comparison of the results obtained by HAMM and several representative methods on the GLEAM dataset. Statistical significance of accuracy differences relative to the baseline method is evaluated using two-tailed paired t-tests. (*: p<0.05 ; **: p<0.01 , where p denotes p-value. TL: Transfer Learning, SCL: Supervised Contrastive Learning, SSL: Self-supervised Learning.
Fig. 4 : Visualization of regions of interest identified by the model using Guided Grad-CAM
Modality
Acc
F1
AUROC
QWK
Acc-C1
Acc-C2
Acc-C3
Acc-C4
SLO
60.25**
37.25
74.72
56.79
94.83
3.00
2.00
72.00
OCT
61.75**
42.39
76.70
62.84
93.33
8.00
10.50
72.00
VF
74.25**
59.85
90.42
83.03
98.00
6.00
57.50
88.00
SLO+OCT
64.42**
46.47
67.22
79.72
94.00
11.00
13.50
80.00
SLO+VF
77.67*
68.36
91.87
86.84
96.33
26.00
61.50
89.50
OCT+VF
77.08*
67.38
92.24
86.25
96.50
22.50
61.00
89.50
TABLE IV : Experimental results of different modalities. Statistical significance of accuracy differences relative to the tri-modal method is evaluated using two-tailed paired t-tests. (Acc-Cn: accuracy for class n.)
Fig. 5 : Comprehensive evaluation of model feature representations and classification performance under three input settings: (a), (b), and (c) are t-SNE visualizations of feature embeddings corresponding to the input settings of VF, SLO+VF, and SLO+OCT+VF respectively; (e), (f), and (g) are confusion matrices corresponding to the identical set of input combinations.
Modality
Acc
F1
AUROC
QWK
Corolla
69.87
60.42
84.65
73.15
ETSCL
70.35
61.76
84.89
73.22
MultiMAE
71.62
64.15
85.76
75.25
URFound
72.48
64.89
86.83
76.28
HAMM(Ours)
74.59
66.73
88.92
77.05
TABLE V : Model performance under missing-modality scenarios.
Fig. 6 : Reliability diagram of models, including: (a) reliability diagram for different modalities VF, SLO+VF, and SLO+OCT+VF, and (b) reliability diagram for SOTA methods ConvNeXt, ETSCL, and HAMM.
MCGA
Pre-train
Acc
F1
AUROC
QWK
77.67
70.19
92.14
87.00
✓
79.17
71.93
92.89
89.52
✓
79.67
73.68
92.83
89.57
✓
✓
81.08
75.90
93.03
90.07
TABLE VI : The ablation study results of HAMM.
Pooling Scheme
Attention Scheme
Fusion Scheme
Acc
F1
AUROC
QWK
Param
FLOPs
-
CBAM [ 59 ]
Late
78.00
70.89
92.14
87.93
125.59
14.27
-
CBAM [ 59 ]
Hierarchical
78.62
71.46
92.51
88.42
139.53
19.83
GAP only
Gating only
Hierarchical
77.75
70.61
92.49
87.02
131.68
12.49
GAP only
Graph only
Hierarchical
78.59
71.15
92.41
87.92
166.70
12.60
GAP only
Full Attention
Hierarchical
78.75
71.82
92.66
88.76
233.55
12.66
Full Pooling
Full Attention
Late
78.50
71.25
92.36
88.30
118.80
12.46
TABLE VII : Ablation study results showing the contribution of different components in the MCGA module.
Fig. 7 : Visualization of averaged feature maps from the 3rd and 4th backbone layers with and without the MCGA module.
Fig. 8 : Impact of masking ratio on model accuracy, with the optimum at 0.7 when trained for 20 epochs.
Method
Add Info.
Add Mod.
Ensemble
QWK
SmartDSP [ 24 ]
✗
✗
✓
85.49
COROLLA [ 27 ]
✗
✗
✓
85.50
ETSCL [ 29 ]
✗
✓
✗
88.44
Mstnet (ResNet50) [ 26 ]
✓
✗
✗
86.00
GeCoM-Net [ 28 ]
✗
✗
✗
86.00
GeCoM-Net [ 28 ]
✗
✗
✓
88.10
TABLE VIII : Comparison of Quadratic Weighted Kappa Results Among HAMM and SOTA Methods on the GAMMA dataset. (Add Info.: Use additional ophthalmic data for training, Add Mod.: Use additional modality)
Accurate diagnosis of glaucoma is challenging, as early-stage changes are subtle and often lack clear structural or appearance cues. Most existing approaches rely on a single modality, such as fundus or optical coherence tomography (OCT), capturing only partial pathological information and often missing early disease progression. In this paper, we propose an iterative multimodal optimization model (IMO) for joint segmentation and grading. IMO integrates fundus and OCT features through a mid-level fusion strategy, enhanced by a cross-modal feature alignment (CMFA) module to reduce modality discrepancies. An iterative refinement decoder progressively optimizes the multimodal features through a denoising diffusion mechanism, enabling fine-grained segmentation of the optic disc and cup while supporting accurate glaucoma grading. Extensive experiments show that our method effectively integrates multimodal features, providing a comprehensive and clinically significant approach to glaucoma assessment. Source codes are available at https://github.com/warren-wzw/IMO.git.
Zhiwei Wang, Yuxing Li, Meilu Zhu +2
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · College of Information Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
Glaucoma is a progressive eye disease that can lead to irreversible vision loss if not detected at an early stage. Conventional diagnostic procedures are often time-consuming and rely heavily on expert interpretation, limiting their scalability for large-scale screening. In this study, glaucoma detection is investigated under two evaluation settings: sample-wise, where individual samples are analyzed independently, and patient-wise, where data from each patient are aggregated for final prediction. An automated multimodal framework is proposed that integrates fundus images with clinical data. Under the sample-wise setting, detection is performed using fundus images and clinical features individually, as well as through their multimodal combination. Under the patient-wise setting, predictions are obtained by aggregating multiple fundus image representations with corresponding clinical information for each patient. Deep visual features are extracted using a Vision Transformer (ViT) architecture and classified using classical machine-learning models, with a stacking-based ensemble of the three best-performing classifiers employed to optimize performance. Experiments conducted on the publicly available PAPILA dataset demonstrate strong diagnostic performance, achieving 97.47% accuracy and a 97.50% F1-score for sample-wise multimodal classification, and 98.97% accuracy and F1-score for subject-wise detection. The proposed framework is further deployed as an end-to-end web-based platform to support automated glaucoma screening and clinical decision support.
Ishrat Jahan, Muhammad E. H Chowdhury, Murugappan Murugappan +7
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh · Department of Electrical Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar · Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Kuwait College of Science and Technology, Block 4, Doha, Kuwait +5
Early and accurate glaucoma detection is critical to prevent irreversible vision loss, yet existing AI methods often rely on unimodal inputs and lack interpretability. We present GlaBoost, a multimodal gradient boosting framework that unifies three complementary signals for glaucoma risk prediction: fundus image embeddings from a pretrained convolutional encoder,free-text neuroretinal rim assessments encoded by a transformer-based language model, and structured ophthalmic biomarkers. These modalities are fused into a single representation and classified by an enhanced XGBoost model.On two real-world annotated datasets, GlaBoost consistently outperforms unimodal and generic multimodal baselines. Feature importance analysis highlights the cup-to-disc ratio, rim thinning, and the ISNT rule as the dominant predictors, yielding clinically consistent and interpretable decisions. GlaBoost offers a transparent and scalable foundation for multimodal decision support in ophthalmology.
Cheng Huang, Zeyu Han, Weizheng Xie +4
Department of Computer Science, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75205, USA · Department of Ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA · High Performance Computing Program, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, USA