Trial reportScientific reports2020
Replication and Refinement of an Algorithm for Automated Drusen Segmentation on Optical Coherence Tomography.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Pooled it
- Identifying Imaging Predictors of Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration Progression.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Accurate drusen segmentation in optical coherence tomography via order-constrained regression of retinal layer heights.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparability of automated drusen volume measurements in age-related macular degeneration: a MACUSTAR study report.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Validation of an Automated Quantification of Relative Ellipsoid Zone Reflectivity on Spectral Domain-Optical Coherence Tomography Images.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.