Trial reportPloS one2021
Artificial intelligence for classifying uncertain images by humans in determining choroidal vascular running pattern and comparisons with automated classification between artificial intelligence.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Convergence of disciplines: a systematic review of multidisciplinary development approaches in artificial intelligence.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAbnormalities of the running pattern of choroidal vessel have been reported in eyes with pachychoroid diseases. However, it is difficult for clinicians to judge the running pattern with high reproducibility. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the degree of concordance of the running pattern of the choroidal vessels between that determined by artificial intelligence (AI) to that determined by experienced clinicians.
methodsThe running pattern of the choroidal vessels in en face images of Haller's layer of 413 normal and pachychoroid diseased eyes was classified as symmetrical or asymmetrical by human raters and by three supervised machine learning models; the support vector machine (SVM), Xception, and random forest models. The data from the human raters were used as the supervised data. The accuracy rates of the human raters and the certainty of AI's answers were compared using confidence scores (CSs).
resultsThe choroidal vascular running pattern could be determined by each AI model with an area under the curve better than 0.94. The random forest method was able to discriminate with the highest accuracy among the three AIs. In the CS analyses, the percentage of certainty was highest (66.4%) and that of uncertainty was lowest (6.1%) in the agreement group. On the other hand, the rate of uncertainty was highest (27.3%) in the disagreement group.
conclusionAI algorithm can automatically classify with ambiguous criteria the presence or absence of a symmetrical blood vessel running pattern of the choroid. The classification was as good as that of supervised humans in accuracy and reproducibility.
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.