ArticlePloS one2022
An improved strabismus screening method with combination of meta-learning and image processing under data scarcity.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Automated strabismus evaluation: a critical review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Design and clinical evaluation of a virtual reality-based system for automated ocular deviation measurement.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Optometry: Current and Future Perspectives.Clinical optometry · 2025Review
- An artificial intelligence platform for the screening and managing of strabismus.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Reliability of a computerized system for strabismus screening.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Advances in artificial intelligence models and algorithms in the field of optometry.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConsidering the scarcity of normal and strabismic images, this study proposed a method that combines a meta-learning approach with image processing methods to improve the classification accuracy when meta-learning alone is used for screening strabismus.
methodsThe meta-learning approach was first pre-trained on a public dataset to obtain a well-generalized embedding network to extract distinctive features of images. On the other hand, the image processing methods were used to extract the position features of eye regions (e.g., iris position, corneal light reflex) as supplementary features to the distinctive features. Afterward, principal component analysis was applied to reduce the dimensionality of distinctive features for integration with low-dimensional supplementary features. The integrated features were then used to train a support vector machine classifier for performing strabismus screening. Sixty images (30 normal and 30 strabismus) were used to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, and its classification performance was assessed by computing the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity through 5,000 experiments.
resultsThe proposed method achieved a classification accuracy of 0.805 with a sensitivity (correct classification of strabismus) of 0.768 and a specificity (correct classification of normal) of 0.842, whereas the classification accuracy of using meta-learning alone was 0.709 with a sensitivity of 0.740 and a specificity of 0.678.
conclusionThe proposed strabismus screening method achieved promising classification accuracy and gained significant accuracy improvement over using meta-learning alone under data scarcity.
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.