Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35360710›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Prediction of the Fundus Tessellation Severity With Machine Learning Methods.

Lei Shao, Xiaomei Zhang, Teng Hu, Yang Chen, Chuan Zhang, Li Dong, Saiguang Ling, Zhou Dong, Wen Da Zhou, Rui Heng Zhang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Lei ShaoBeijing Key Laboratory of Intraocular Tumor Diagnosis and Treatment, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Lab, Medical Artificial Intelligence Research and Verification Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiaomei ZhangSchool of Statistics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China.
Teng HuSchool of Banking and Finance, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China.
Yang ChenSchool of Statistics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China.
Chuan ZhangBeijing Key Laboratory of Intraocular Tumor Diagnosis and Treatment, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Lab, Medical Artificial Intelligence Research and Verification Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Li DongBeijing Key Laboratory of Intraocular Tumor Diagnosis and Treatment, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Lab, Medical Artificial Intelligence Research and Verification Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Saiguang LingEVision Technology (Beijing) Co. LTD., Beijing, China.
Zhou DongEVision Technology (Beijing) Co. LTD., Beijing, China.
Wen Da ZhouBeijing Key Laboratory of Intraocular Tumor Diagnosis and Treatment, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Lab, Medical Artificial Intelligence Research and Verification Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Rui Heng ZhangBeijing Key Laboratory of Intraocular Tumor Diagnosis and Treatment, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Lab, Medical Artificial Intelligence Research and Verification Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Lei QinSchool of Statistics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China.
Wen Bin WeiBeijing Key Laboratory of Intraocular Tumor Diagnosis and Treatment, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Key Lab, Medical Artificial Intelligence Research and Verification Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To predict the fundus tessellation (FT) severity with machine learning methods. Methods: A population-based cross-sectional study with 3,468 individuals (mean age of 64.6 ± 9.8 years) based on Beijing Eye Study 2011. Participants underwent detailed ophthalmic examinations including fundus images. Five machine learning methods including ordinal logistic regression, ordinal probit regression, ordinal log-gamma regression, ordinal forest and neural network were used. Main Outcome Measure: FT precision, recall, F1-score, weighted-average F1-score and AUC value. Results: Observed from the in-sample fitting performance, the optimal model was ordinal forest, which had correct classification rate (precision) of 81.28%, while 34.75, 93.73, 70.03, and 24.82% in each classified group by FT severity. The AUC value was 0.7249. And the F1-score was 65.05%, weighted-average F1-score was 79.64% on the whole dataset. For out-of-sample prediction performance, the optimal model was ordinal logistic regression, which had precision of 77.12% on the validation dataset, while 19.57, 92.68, 64.74, and 6.76% in each classified group by FT severity. The AUC value was 0.7187. The classification accuracy of light FT group was the highest, while that of severe FT group was the lowest. And the F1-score was 54.46%, weighted-average F1-score was 74.19% on the whole dataset. Conclusions: The ordinal forest and ordinal logistic regression model had the strong prediction in-sample and out-sample performance, respectively. The threshold ranges of the ordinal forest model for no FT and light, moderate, severe FT were [0, 0.3078], [0.3078, 0.3347], [0.3347, 0.4048], [0.4048, 1], respectively. Likewise, the threshold ranges of ordinal logistic regression model were ≤ 3.7389, [3.7389, 10.5053], [10.5053, 13.9323], > 13.9323. These results can be applied to guide clinical fundus disease screening and FT severity assessment.

Indexed as

fundus tessellated densityfundus tessellationfundus tessellation severitymachine learningthe Beijing eye study

Identifiers

PMID35360710
PMCPMC8960643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.