ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks Detect no Morphological Differences Between Culture-Positive and Culture-Negative Infectious Keratitis Images.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of deep learning for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Establishment of a corneal ulcer prognostic model based on machine learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Infectious Keratitis: Where Are We Now?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Multimodal Deep Learning for Differentiating Bacterial and Fungal Keratitis Using Prospective Representative Data.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
- Applications of Computer Vision for Infectious Keratitis: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmology scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether convolutional neural networks can detect morphological differences between images of microbiologically positive and negative corneal ulcers. Methods: A cross-sectional comparison of prospectively collected data consisting of bacterial and fungal cultures and smears from eyes with acute infectious keratitis at Aravind Eye Hospital. Two convolutional neural network architectures (DenseNet and MobileNet) were trained using images obtained from handheld cameras collected from culture-positive and negative images and smear-positive and -negative images. Each architecture was trained on two image sets: (1) one with labels assigned using only culture results and (2) one using culture and smear results. The outcome measure was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting whether an ulcer would be microbiologically positive or negative. Results: There were 1970 images from 886 patients were included. None of the models were better than random chance at predicting positive microbiologic results (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.49 to 0.56; all confidence intervals included 0.5). Conclusions: These two state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural network architectures could not reliably predict whether a corneal ulcer would be microbiologically positive or negative based on clinical photographs. This absence of detectable morphological differences informs the future development of computer vision models trained to predict the causative agent in infectious keratitis using corneal photography. Translational Relevance: These deep learning models were not able to identify morphological differences between microbiologically positive and negative corneal ulcers. This finding suggests that similar artificial intelligence models trained to identify the causative pathogen using only microbiologically positive cases may have potential to generalize well, including to cases with falsely negative microbiologic testing.
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.