Submitted:
30 April 2025
Posted:
02 May 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Data Acquisition
2.2. Preprocessing of DITI Data
2.3. Statistical Analysis
2.4. Machine Learning Classification
3. Results
3.1. DITI Dataset Processing and Analysis
3.2. Feature Selection and Correlation Analysis
3.3. Evaluation of Classification Performance using Machine Learning
3.3.1. Support Vector Machine Classifier
3.3.2. k-Nearest Neighbours Classifier
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| DED | Dry Eye Disease |
| DITI | Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging |
| DL | Deep Learning |
| ML OST NC CC TC TBUT OSDI SVM k-NN |
Machine Learning Ocular Surface Temperature Nasal Cornea Center Cornea Temporal Cornea Tear Break Up Time Ocular Surface Disease Index Support Vector Machine k-Nearest Neighbours |
References
- Findlay, Q.; Reid, K. Dry eye disease: When to treat and when to refer. Aust. Prescr. 2018, 41, 160–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsubota, K.; Yokoi, N.; Watanabe, H.; Dogru, M.; Kojima, T.; Yamada, M.; Kinoshita, S.; Kim, H.M.; Tchah, H.W.; Hyon, J.Y.; et al. A New Perspective on Dry Eye Classification: Proposal by the Asia Dry Eye Society. Eye Contact Lens 2020, 46, S2–S13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemp, M.A. Report of the National Eye Institute/Industry workshop on Clinical Trials in Dry Eyes. CLAO J. 1995, 21 4, 221–232. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Mohtaseb, Z.; Schachter, S.; Lee, B.S.; Garlich, J.; Trattler, W. The relationship between dry eye disease and digital screen use. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2021, 15, 3811–3820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, H.B.; Abd El-Hamid, B.N.; Fathalla, D.; Fouad, E.A. Current trends in pharmaceutical treatment of dry eye disease: A review. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2022, 175, 106206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolffsohn, J.S.; Arita, R.; Chalmers, R.; Djalilian, A.; Dogru, M.; Dumbleton, K.; Gupta, P.K.; Karpecki, P.; Lazreg, S.; Pult, H.; et al. TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report. Ocul. Surf. 2017, 15, 539–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Wu, Y.; Song, Y.; Qin, G.; Yang, L.; Talwar, S.S.; Lin, T.; Talwar, G.D.S.; Zhang, H.; Xu, L.; et al. Screening Evaporative Dry Eyes Severity Using an Infrared Image. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kesztyüs, D.; Brucher, S.; Wilson, C.; Kesztyüs, T. Use of Infrared Thermography in Medical Diagnosis, Screening, and Disease Monitoring: A Scoping Review. Medicina (B. Aires). 2023, 59, 2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, P.B.; Tullo, A.B.; Efron, N. Infrared thermography of the tear film in dry eye. Eye 1995, 9, 615–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sudarshan, V.K.; Koh, J.E.W.; Acharya, U.R.; Tan, J.H.; Mookiah, M.R.K.; Chua, C.K.; Tong, L. Evaluation of Evaporative Dry Eye Disease Using Thermal Images of Ocular Surface Regions with DWT and Gabor Transform. In; 2017; pp. 359–375.
- Gulias-Cañizo, R.; Rodríguez-Malagón, M.E.; Botello-González, L.; Belden-Reyes, V.; Amparo, F.; Garza-Leon, M. Applications of Infrared Thermography in Ophthalmology. Life 2023, 13, 723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, T.-Y.; Chang, S.-W. Normalized ocular surface temperature models for tear film characteristics and dry eye disease evaluation. Ocul. Surf. 2021, 19, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Q.; Wu, Y.; Song, Y.; Qin, G.; Yang, L.; Talwar, S.S.; Lin, T.; Talwar, G.D.S.; Zhang, H.; Xu, L.; et al. Screening Evaporative Dry Eyes Severity Using an Infrared Image. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljarousha, M.; Abd Rahman, A.A.; Badarudin, N.E.; Che Azemin, M.Z.; Awad, K. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Dry Eye Disease in Kuantan, Malaysia. Makara J. Heal. Res. 2018, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PETUNJUK KESIHATAN 2024; 2024.
- Gammoh, Y.; Morjaria, P.; Block, S.; Massie, J.; Hendicott, P. 2023 Global Survey of Optometry: Defining Variations of Practice, Regulation and Human Resources Between Countries. Clin. Optom. 2024, Volume 16, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsaqr, A.M. Remarks on the use of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients in assessing relationships in ophthalmic data. African Vis. Eye Heal. 2021, 80, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, T.Y.; Ho, W.T.; Lu, C.Y.; Chang, S.W.; Chiang, H.K. Correlations among ocular surface temperature difference value, the tear meniscus height, Schirmer’s test and fluorescein tear film break up time. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2015, 99, 482–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, A.M.; Galor, A. Impact of Ocular Surface Temperature on Tear Characteristics: Current Insights. Clin. Optom. 2021, Volume 13, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, J.E.; Kim, Y.H.; Yi, S.M.; Graham, A.D.; Li, W.; Lin, M.C. Ocular surface cooling rate associated with tear film characteristics and the maximum interblink period. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 15030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ABUSHARHA, Ph.D., A. Analysis of Ocular Surface Temperature in Patients with Dry Eye. Med. J. Cairo Univ. 2021, 89, 2549–2553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.; Huang, Y.; Xu, B.; Li, B.; Zhuang, S.; Cao, G.; Hu, Y.; Gu, Z. Comparing the corneal temperature of dry eyes with that of normal eyes via high-resolution infrared thermography. Front. Med. 2025, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abreau, K.; Callan, C.; Kottaiyan, R.; Zhang, A.; Yoon, G.; Aquavella, J. V.; Zavislan, J.; Hindman, H.B. Temperatures of the Ocular Surface, Lid, and Periorbital Regions of Sjögren’s, Evaporative, and Aqueous-Deficient Dry Eyes Relative to Normals. Ocul. Surf. 2016, 14, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]






| 0s | 1s | 2s | 3s | 4s | 5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| NK = 33.2 PK = 33.0 TK = 32.9 |
NK = 33.0 PK = 32.9 TK = 32.9 |
NK = 33.9 PK = 32.9 TK = 32.9 |
NK = 32.7 PK = 32.7 TK = 32.7 |
NK = 32.8 PK = 32.7 TK = 32.7 |
NK = 32.5 PK = 32.5 TK = 32.6 |
| Parameters | Normal | DED | Shapiro-P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of eyes | 20 | 20 | - |
| Age (year) | 31.25 ± 17.57 | 25.63 ± 10.63 | <.001 |
| Gender (female%, n) | 65% (13) | 85% (17) | - |
| TBUT (sec) | 5.85 ± 1.14 | 2.37 ± 0.60 | <.001 |
| OSDI score | 15.90 ± 8.48 | 37.43 ± 6.83 | 0.035 |
| Body temperature (℃) | 33.62 ± 0.92 | 33.77 ± 0.54 | <.001 |
| Parameter | Normal | DED | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normalized average OST () | NC | 0.58 ±0.20 | 0.51 ±0.18 |
| CC | 0.62 ±0.22 | 0.52 ±0.21 | |
| TC | 0.57 ±0.24 | 0.49 ±0.22 | |
| Cooling rate of OST (ec) | NC | -0.071 ±0.061 | -0.233 ±0.050 |
| CC | -0.074 ±0.053 | -0.228 ±0.044 | |
| TC | -0.074 ±0.063 | -0.217 ±0.060 | |
| Parameter | Normal | DED | Shapiro-P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 33.99 ±0.44 | 33.99 ±0.41 | 0.075 | |
| Starting OST 0 sec (℃) |
CC | 33.83 ±0.51 | 33.75 ±0.45 | 0.515 |
| TC | 33.80 ±0.52 | 33.77 ±0.41 | 0.035 | |
| NC | 33.85 ±0.46 | 33.68 ±0.42 | 0.342 | |
| OST at 1 sec (℃) |
CC | 33.64 ±0.50 | 33.42 ±0.51 | 0.184 |
| TC | 33.68 ±0.51 | 33.47 ±0.45 | 0.479 | |
| NC | 33.79 ±0.53 | 33.46 ±0.40 | 0.589 | |
| OST at 2 sec (℃) |
CC | 33.60 ±0.56 | 33.21 ±0.46 | 0.539 |
| TC | 33.61 ±0.56 | 33.29 ±0.45 | 0.230 | |
| NC | 33.70 ±0.53 | 33.26 ±0.36 | 0.769 | |
| OST at 3 sec (℃) |
CC | 33.54 ±0.57 | 33.02 ±0.43 | 0.806 |
| TC | 33.55 ±0.55 | 33.08 ±0.44 | 0.337 | |
| NC | 33.71 ±0.51 | 33.06 ±0.39 | 0.852 | |
| OST at 4 sec (℃) |
CC | 33.53 ±0.59 | 32.84 ±0.45 | 0.253 |
| TC | 33.51 ±0.59 | 32.90 ±0.46 | 0.133 | |
| Main Features | t | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normalized average OST () | NC | -1.109 | 0.275 |
| CC | -1.483 | 0.147 | |
| TC | -1.007 | 0.320 | |
| Starting OST () | NC | -0.004 | 0.997 |
| CC | -0.504 | 0.617 | |
| TC | -0.203 | 0.840 | |
| Cooling rate of OST () | NC | -9.034 | <.001 |
| CC | -9.851 | <.001 | |
| TC | -7.29 | <.001 | |
| Secondary Features | t | p | |
| OST at 1 sec () | NC | -1.165 | 0.251 |
| CC | -1.361 | 0.182 | |
| TC | -1.312 | 0.198 | |
| OST at 2 sec () | NC | -2.165 | 0.037 |
| CC | -2.359 | 0.024 | |
| TC | -1.931 | 0.061 | |
| OST at 3 sec () | NC | -2.988 | 0.005 |
| CC | -3.241 | 0.003 | |
| TC | -2.923 | 0.006 | |
| OST at 4 sec () | NC | -4.423 | < .001 |
| CC | -4.124 | < .001 | |
| TC | -3.588 | < .001 | |
| Kernel | Assessment | Top-3 features |
Top-5 features |
Top-10 features | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | Acc (%) | 86.49 | 90.54 | 89.19 | 88.74 |
| Sen (%) | 93.75 | 94.12 | 92.31 | 93.39 | |
| Spe (%) | 73.08 | 82.61 | 81.82 | 79.17 | |
| Err (%) | 13.51 | 9.46 | 10.81 | 11.26 | |
| Quadratic | Acc (%) | 90.54 | 89.19 | 91.89 | 90.54 |
| Sen (%) | 92.45 | 89.29 | 92.59 | 91.44 | |
| Spe (%) | 85.71 | 88.89 | 90.00 | 88.20 | |
| Err (%) | 9.46 | 10.81 | 8.11 | 9.46 | |
| Cubic | Acc (%) | 86.49 | 77.03 | 90.54 | 84.68 |
| Sen (%) | 90.38 | 85.71 | 92.45 | 89.52 | |
| Spe (%) | 77.27 | 60.00 | 85.71 | 74.33 | |
| Err (%) | 13.51 | 22.97 | 9.46 | 15.32 | |
| Fine Gaussian | Acc (%) | 87.84 | 87.84 | 77.03 | 84.23 |
| Sen (%) | 86.44 | 86.44 | 76.92 | 83.27 | |
| Spe (%) | 93.33 | 93.33 | 77.78 | 88.15 | |
| Err (%) | 12.16 | 12.16 | 22.97 | 15.77 | |
| Medium Gaussian | Acc (%) | 85.14 | 81.08 | 78.38 | 81.53 |
| Sen (%) | 83.61 | 79.69 | 77.27 | 80.19 | |
| Spe (%) | 92.31 | 90.00 | 87.50 | 89.94 | |
| Err (%) | 14.86 | 18.92 | 21.62 | 18.47 |
| Distance Technique | Assessment | k=1 | k=3 | k=5 | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Euclidean | Acc (%) | 85.14 | 91.89 | 89.19 | 88.74 |
| Sen (%) | 88.68 | 92.59 | 87.93 | 89.73 | |
| Spe (%) | 76.19 | 90.00 | 93.75 | 86.65 | |
| Err (%) | 14.86 | 8.11 | 10.81 | 11.26 | |
| Chebyshev | Acc (%) | 85.14 | 86.49 | 86.49 | 86.04 |
| Sen (%) | 88.68 | 86.21 | 85.00 | 86.63 | |
| Spe (%) | 76.19 | 87.50 | 92.86 | 85.52 | |
| Err (%) | 14.86 | 13.51 | 13.51 | 13.96 | |
| Mahalanobis | Acc (%) | 82.43 | 87.84 | 87.84 | 86.04 |
| Sen (%) | 86.79 | 87.72 | 87.72 | 87.41 | |
| Spe (%) | 71.43 | 88.24 | 88.24 | 82.63 | |
| Err (%) | 17.57 | 12.16 | 12.16 | 13.96 |
| Classifier Method | Parameter/Kernel Type | Features | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| k-NN | Euclidean + (k=3) | Top-3 | 91.89 |
| SVM | Linear | Top-10 | 91.80 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).





