ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020
A Retrospective Comparison of Deep Learning to Manual Annotations for Optic Disc and Optic Cup Segmentation in Fundus Photographs.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep Learning in Glaucoma Detection and Progression Prediction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Development of a Cost-Efficient and Glaucoma-Specialized OD/OC Segmentation Model for Varying Clinical Scenarios.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Assessing Inter-Annotator Agreement for Medical Image Segmentation.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2023Article
- A Multicenter Clinical Study of the Automated Fundus Screening Algorithm.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Validating automated eye disease screening AI algorithm in community and in-hospital scenarios.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Optic disc (OD) and optic cup (OC) segmentation are fundamental for fundus image analysis. Manual annotation is time consuming, expensive, and highly subjective, whereas an automated system is invaluable to the medical community. The aim of this study is to develop a deep learning system to segment OD and OC in fundus photographs, and evaluate how the algorithm compares against manual annotations. Methods: A total of 1200 fundus photographs with 120 glaucoma cases were collected. The OD and OC annotations were labeled by seven licensed ophthalmologists, and glaucoma diagnoses were based on comprehensive evaluations of the subject medical records. A deep learning system for OD and OC segmentation was developed. The performances of segmentation and glaucoma discriminating based on the cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) of automated model were compared against the manual annotations. Results: The algorithm achieved an OD dice of 0.938 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.934-0.941), OC dice of 0.801 (95% CI = 0.793-0.809), and CDR mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.077 (95% CI = 0.073 mean absolute error (MAE)0.082). For glaucoma discriminating based on CDR calculations, the algorithm obtained an area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.948 (95% CI = 0.920 mean absolute error (MAE)0.973), with a sensitivity of 0.850 (95% CI = 0.794-0.923) and specificity of 0.853 (95% CI = 0.798-0.918). Conclusions: We demonstrated the potential of the deep learning system to assist ophthalmologists in analyzing OD and OC segmentation and discriminating glaucoma from nonglaucoma subjects based on CDR calculations. Translational Relevance: We investigate the segmentation of OD and OC by deep learning system compared against the manual annotations.
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.