ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparing the Clinical Viability of Automated Fundus Image Segmentation Methods.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recent methods for automatic blood vessel segmentation from fundus images have been commonly implemented as convolutional neural networks. While these networks report high values for objective metrics, the clinical viability of recovered segmentation masks remains unexplored. In this paper, we perform a pilot study to assess the clinical viability of automatically generated segmentation masks in the diagnosis of diseases affecting retinal vascularization. Five ophthalmologists with clinical experience were asked to participate in the study. The results demonstrate low classification accuracy, inferring that generated segmentation masks cannot be used as a standalone resource in general clinical practice. The results also hint at possible clinical infeasibility in experimental design. In the follow-up experiment, we evaluate the clinical quality of masks by having ophthalmologists rank generation methods. The ranking is established with high intra-observer consistency, indicating better subjective performance for a subset of tested networks. The study also demonstrates that objective metrics are not correlated with subjective metrics in retinal segmentation tasks for the methods involved, suggesting that objective metrics commonly used in scientific papers to measure the method's performance are not plausible criteria for choosing clinically robust solutions.
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.