ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Deep Learning-Based Modeling of the Dark Adaptation Curve for Robust Parameter Estimation.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mobile Objective Diagnostics of Macular Degeneration using Dark-Adapted Visual Evoked Potentials.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Machine learning applications for the prediction of extended length of stay in geriatric hip fracture patients.World journal of orthopedics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates deep-learning (DL) sequence modeling techniques to reliably fit dark adaptation (DA) curves and estimate their key parameters in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) to improve robustness and curve predictions. Methods: A long-short-term memory autoencoder was used as the DL method to model the DA curve. The performance was compared against the classical nonlinear regression method using goodness-of-fit and repeatability metrics. Experiments were performed to predict the latter portion of the curve using data from early measurements. The prediction accuracy was quantified as the rod intercept time (RIT) prediction error between predicted and actual curves. Results: The two models had comparable goodness-of-fit measures, with root mean squared error (RMSE; SD) = 0.11 (0.04) log-units (LU) for the classical model and RMSE = 0.13 (0.06) LU for the DL model. Repeatability of the curve fits evaluated after introduction of random perturbations, and after performing repeated testing, demonstrated superiority of the DL method, especially among parameters related to cone decay. The DL method exhibited superior ability to predict the curve and RIT using points prior to -2 LU, with 3.1 ± 3.1 minutes RIT prediction error, compared to 19.1 ± 18.6 minutes RIT error for the classical method. Conclusions: The parameters obtained from the DL method demonstrated superior robustness as well as predictability of the curve. These could provide important advances in using multiple DA curve parameters to characterize AMD severity. Translational Relevance: Dark adaptation is an important functional measure in studies of AMD and curve modeling using DL methods can lead to improved clinical trial end points.
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.