ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
A Deep Learning System for Automated Quality Evaluation of Optic Disc Photographs in Neuro-Ophthalmic Disorders.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Detection of Papilledema: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Detecting papilloedema as a marker of raised intracranial pressure using artificial intelligence: A systematic review.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Retina Fundus Photograph-Based Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Medicine: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Review
- Diagnostic dilemma of papilledema and pseudopapilledema.International ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Enhancing Retinal Fundus Image Quality Assessment With Swin-Transformer-Based Learning Across Multiple Color-Spaces.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The quality of ocular fundus photographs can affect the accuracy of the morphologic assessment of the optic nerve head (ONH), either by humans or by deep learning systems (DLS). In order to automatically identify ONH photographs of optimal quality, we have developed, trained, and tested a DLS, using an international, multicentre, multi-ethnic dataset of 5015 ocular fundus photographs from 31 centres in 20 countries participating to the Brain and Optic Nerve Study with Artificial Intelligence (BONSAI). The reference standard in image quality was established by three experts who independently classified photographs as of "good", "borderline", or "poor" quality. The DLS was trained on 4208 fundus photographs and tested on an independent external dataset of 807 photographs, using a multi-class model, evaluated with a one-vs-rest classification strategy. In the external-testing dataset, the DLS could identify with excellent performance "good" quality photographs (AUC = 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95), accuracy = 91.4% (95% CI, 90.0-92.9%), sensitivity = 93.8% (95% CI, 92.5-95.2%), specificity = 75.9% (95% CI, 69.7-82.1%) and "poor" quality photographs (AUC = 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00), accuracy = 99.1% (95% CI, 98.6-99.6%), sensitivity = 81.5% (95% CI, 70.6-93.8%), specificity = 99.7% (95% CI, 99.6-100.0%). "Borderline" quality images were also accurately classified (AUC = 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93), accuracy = 90.6% (95% CI, 89.1-92.2%), sensitivity = 65.4% (95% CI, 56.6-72.9%), specificity = 93.4% (95% CI, 92.1-94.8%). The overall accuracy to distinguish among the three classes was 90.6% (95% CI, 89.1-92.1%), suggesting that this DLS could select optimal quality fundus photographs in patients with neuro-ophthalmic and neurological disorders affecting the ONH.
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.