ArticleCornea2020
Measurement Reliability for Keratitis Morphology.
Article in Cornea, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Deep Learning Imaging Algorithm Measures of Microbial Keratitis With Vision Outcomes.Cornea · 2026Article
- Assessment of Keratitis Severity Using Quantitative Image Analysis in an In Vivo Murine Model of Staphylococcus aureus Bacterial Keratitis.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- The Role of Topical Povidone-Iodine in the Management of Infectious Keratitis: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Open-Source Automatic Biomarker Measurement on Slit-Lamp Photography to Estimate Visual Acuity in Microbial Keratitis.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the reliability of manual annotation when quantifying cornea anatomical and microbial keratitis (MK) morphological features on slit-lamp photography (SLP) images.
methodsProspectively enrolled patients with MK underwent SLP at initial encounter at 2 academic eye hospitals. Patients who presented with an epithelial defect (ED) were eligible for analysis. Features, which included ED, corneal limbus (L), pupil (P), stromal infiltrate (SI), white blood cell (WBC) infiltration at the SI edge, and hypopyon (H), were annotated independently by 2 physicians on SLP images. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were applied for reliability assessment; dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) were used to investigate the area overlap between readers.
resultsSeventy-five MK patients with an ED received SLP. DSCs indicate good to fair annotation overlap between graders (L = 0.97, P = 0.80, ED = 0.94, SI = 0.82, H = 0.82, WBC = 0.83) and between repeat annotations by the same grader (L = 0.97, P = 0.81, ED = 0.94, SI = 0.85, H = 0.84, WBC = 0.82). ICC scores showed good intergrader (L = 0.98, P = 0.78, ED = 1.00, SI = 0.67, H = 0.97, WBC = 0.86) and intragrader (L = 0.99, P = 0.92, ED = 0.99, SI = 0.94, H = 0.99, WBC = 0.92) reliabilities. When reliability statistics were recalculated for annotated SI area in the subset of cases where both graders agreed WBC infiltration was present/absent, intergrader ICC improved to 0.91 and DSC improved to 0.86 and intragrader ICC remained the same, whereas DSC improved to 0.87.
conclusionsManual annotation indicates usefulness of area quantification in the evaluation of MK. However, variability is intrinsic to the task. Thus, there is a need for optimization of annotation protocols. Future directions may include using multiple annotators per image or automated annotation software.
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.