Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32355285›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2020

Replication and Refinement of an Algorithm for Automated Drusen Segmentation on Optical Coherence Tomography.

Maximilian W M Wintergerst, Shekoufeh Gorgi Zadeh, Vitalis Wiens, Sarah Thiele, Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg, Frank G Holz, Robert P Finger, Thomas Schultz

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review.Translational vision science & technology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Maximilian W M Wintergerst *Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Shekoufeh Gorgi Zadeh *Department of Computer Science, University of Bonn, Endenicher Allee 19a, 53115, Bonn, Germany.
Vitalis WiensDepartment of Computer Science, University of Bonn, Endenicher Allee 19a, 53115, Bonn, Germany.
Sarah ThieleDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Steffen Schmitz-ValckenbergDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Frank G HolzDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Robert P FingerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Ernst-Abbe-Str. 2, 53127, Bonn, Germany. robert.finger@ukbonn.de.
Thomas SchultzDepartment of Computer Science, University of Bonn, Endenicher Allee 19a, 53115, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here, we investigate the extent to which re-implementing a previously published algorithm for OCT-based drusen quantification permits replicating the reported accuracy on an independent dataset. We refined that algorithm so that its accuracy is increased. Following a systematic literature search, an algorithm was selected based on its reported excellent results. Several steps were added to improve its accuracy. The replicated and refined algorithms were evaluated on an independent dataset with the same metrics as in the original publication. Accuracy of the refined algorithm (overlap ratio 36-52%) was significantly greater than the replicated one (overlap ratio 25-39%). In particular, separation of the retinal pigment epithelium and the ellipsoid zone could be improved by the refinement. However, accuracy was still lower than reported previously on different data (overlap ratio 67-76%). This is the first replication study of an algorithm for OCT image analysis. Its results indicate that current standards for algorithm validation do not provide a reliable estimate of algorithm performance on images that differ with respect to patient selection and image quality. In order to contribute to an improved reproducibility in this field, we publish both our replication and the refinement, as well as an exemplary dataset.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, Optical CoherenceAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetinal DrusenRetinal Pigment Epithelium

Identifiers

PMID32355285
PMCPMC7192932

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.