ArticleFrontiers in neurology2018
Using Deep Learning for the Classification of Images Generated by Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials Using Artificial Intelligence Algorithms.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Deep Learning for Automatically Visual Evoked Potential Classification During Surgical Decompression of Sellar Region Tumors.Translational vision science & technology · 2019Article
- A systematic review on machine learning in sellar region diseases: quality and reporting items.Endocrine connections · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.