ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019
Development of Predictive Models in Patients with Epiphora Using Lacrimal Scintigraphy and Machine Learning.
Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep Learning-Based Automated Segmentation and Multi-Parametric Quantitative Assessment of the Lacrimal Drainage System on CT-DCG.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Approach for Differentiating Etiologies of Pediatric Retinal Hemorrhages: A Multicenter Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Easy-to-use machine learning system for the prediction of IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion using MRI images of adult-type diffuse gliomas.Brain tumor pathology · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in ophthalmology: A review.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence in cornea and ocular surface diseases.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe developed predictive models using different programming languages and different computing platforms for machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) that classify clinical diagnoses in patients with epiphora. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of these models.
methodsBetween January 2016 and September 2017, 250 patients with epiphora who underwent dacryocystography (DCG) and lacrimal scintigraphy (LS) were included in the study. We developed five different predictive models using ML tools, Python-based TensorFlow, R, and Microsoft Azure Machine Learning Studio (MAMLS). A total of 27 clinical characteristics and parameters including variables related to epiphora (VE) and variables related to dacryocystography (VDCG) were used as input data. Apart from this, we developed two predictive convolutional neural network (CNN) models for diagnosing LS images. We conducted this study using supervised learning.
resultsAmong 500 eyes of 250 patients, 59 eyes had anatomical obstruction, 338 eyes had functional obstruction, and the remaining 103 eyes were normal. For the data set that excluded VE and VDCG, the test accuracies in Python-based TensorFlow, R, multiclass logistic regression in MAMLS, multiclass neural network in MAMLS, and nuclear medicine physician were 81.70%, 80.60%, 81.70%, 73.10%, and 80.60%, respectively. The test accuracies of CNN models in three-class classification diagnosis and binary classification diagnosis were 72.00% and 77.42%, respectively.
conclusionsML-based predictive models using different programming languages and different computing platforms were useful for classifying clinical diagnoses in patients with epiphora and were similar to a clinician's diagnostic ability.
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.