Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30091055›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2018

Deep learning-based detection and classification of geographic atrophy using a deep convolutional neural network classifier.

Maximilian Treder, Jost Lennart Lauermann, Nicole Eter

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maximilian TrederDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Domagkstraße 15, 48149, Muenster, Germany. maximilian.treder@ukmuenster.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8533-6026
Jost Lennart LauermannDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Domagkstraße 15, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Nicole EterDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Domagkstraße 15, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
University of Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo automatically detect and classify geographic atrophy (GA) in fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images using a deep learning algorithm.

methodsIn this study, FAF images of patients with GA, a healthy comparable group and a comparable group with other retinal diseases (ORDs) were used to train a multi-layer deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) (1) to detect GA and (2) to differentiate in GA between a diffuse-trickling pattern (dt-GA) and other GA FAF patterns (ndt-GA) in FAF images. 1. For the automated detection of GA in FAF images, two classifiers were built (GA vs. healthy/GA vs. ORD). The DCNN was trained and validated with 400 FAF images in each case (GA 200, healthy 200, or ORD 200). For the subsequent testing, the built classifiers were then tested with 60 untrained FAF images in each case (AMD 30, healthy 30, or ORD 30). Hereby, both classifiers automatically determined a GA probability score and a normal FAF probability score or an ORD probability score. 2. To automatically differentiate between dt-GA and ndt-GA, the DCNN was trained and validated with 200 FAF images (dt-GA 72; ndt-GA 138). Afterwards, the built classifier was tested with 20 untrained FAF images (dt-GA 10; ndt-GA 10) and a dt-GA probability score and an ndt-GA probability score was calculated. For both classifiers, the performance of the training and validation procedure after 500 training steps was measured by determining training accuracy, validation accuracy, and cross entropy.

resultsFor the GA classifiers (GA vs. healthy/GA vs. ORD), the achieved training accuracy was 99/98%, the validation accuracy 96/91%, and the cross entropy 0.062/0.100. For the dt-GA classifier, the training accuracy was 99%, the validation accuracy 77%, and the cross entropy 0.166. The mean GA probability score was 0.981 ± 0.048 (GA vs. healthy)/0.972 ± 0.439 (GA vs. ORD) in the GA image group and 0.01 ± 0.016 (healthy)/0.061 ± 0.072 (ORD) in the comparison groups (p < 0.001). The mean dt-GA probability score was 0.807 ± 0.116 in the dt-GA image group and 0.180 ± 0.100 in the ndt-GA image group (p < 0.001).

conclusionFor the first time, this study describes the use of a deep learning-based algorithm to automatically detect and classify GA in FAF. Hereby, the created classifiers showed excellent results. With further developments, this model may be a tool to predict the individual progression risk of GA and give relevant information for future therapeutic approaches.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerAgedAlgorithmsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDisease ProgressionFemaleFluorescein AngiographyFundus OculiGeographic AtrophyHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityDeep convolutional neural networkDeep learningFundus autofluorescenceGeographic atrophyMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID30091055
OpenAlexW2885398815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.