Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30123181›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2018

Using Deep Learning for the Classification of Images Generated by Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential.

Nidan Qiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Nidan QiaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceelectrophysiologyimage classificationmfVEPneural networks

Identifiers

PMID30123181
PMCPMC6085441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.