ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparing the results of manual and automated quantitative corneal neuroanalysing modules for beginners.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corneal Confocal Microscopy and Skin Biopsy to Differentiate Painful From Painless Diabetic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review With Multiple Meta-Analyses.European journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Methods for the evaluation of corneal nerve fibres in diabetes mellitus by in vivo confocal microscopy: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Diabetic corneal neuropathy and its relation to the severity of retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an in vivo confocal microscopy study.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Automated identification and quantification of activated dendritic cells in central cornea using artificial intelligence.The ocular surface · 2023Article
- Segmentation and Evaluation of Corneal Nerves and Dendritic Cells From In Vivo Confocal Microscopy Images Using Deep Learning.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Semiautomated and Automated Quantitative Analysis of Corneal Sub-Basal Nerves in Patients With DED With Ocular Pain Using IVCM.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of in vivo confocal microscopic neuroanalysis by beginners using manual and automated modules. Images of sub-basal corneal nerve plexus (SCNP) from 108 images of 18 healthy participants were analyzed by 7 beginner observers using manual (CCMetrics, [CCM]) and automated (ACCMetrics, [ACCM]) module. SCNP parameters analyzed included corneal nerve fiber density (NFD), corneal nerve branch density (NBD), corneal nerve fiber length (NFL), and tortuosity coefficient (TC). The intra-observer repeatability, inter-observer reliability, inter-module agreement, and left-right eye symmetry level of SCNP parameters were examined. All observers showed good intra-observer repeatability using CCM (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.60 for all), except when measuring TC. Two observers demonstrated especially excellent repeatability in analyzing NFD, NBD, and NFL using manual mode, indicating the quality of interpretation may still be observer-dependent. Among all SCNP parameters, NFL had the best inter-observer reliability (Spearman's rank-sum correlation coefficient [SpCC] and ICC > 0.85 for the 3 original observers) and left-right symmetry level (SpCC and ICC > 0.60). In the additional analysis of inter-observer reliability using results by all 7 observers, only NFL showed good inter-observer reliability (ICC = 0.79). Compared with CCM measurements, values of ACCM measurements were significantly lower, implying a poor inter-module agreement. Our result suggested that performance of quantitative corneal neuroanalysis by beginners maybe acceptable, with NFL being the most reliable parameter, and automated method cannot fully replace manual work.
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.