Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36672999›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

The Classification of Common Macular Diseases Using Deep Learning on Optical Coherence Tomography Images with and without Prior Automated Segmentation.

Natsuda Kaothanthong, Jirawut Limwattanayingyong, Sukhum Silpa-Archa, Mongkol Tadarati, Atchara Amphornphruet, Panisa Singhanetr, Pawas Lalitwongsa, Pantid Chantangphol, Anyarak Amornpetchsathaporn, Methaphon Chainakul and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Natsuda KaothanthongSirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-0492-9741
Jirawut LimwattanayingyongDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Sukhum Silpa-ArchaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Mongkol TadaratiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Atchara AmphornphruetDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Panisa SinghanetrDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mettapracharak Hospital, Nakhon Pathom 73210, Thailand.
Pawas LalitwongsaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Pantid ChantangpholSirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12000, Thailand.
Anyarak AmornpetchsathapornDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Methaphon ChainakulDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Paisan RuamviboonsukDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Rajavithi Hospital · THThammasat University · THCharoenkrung Pracharak Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compared the performance of deep learning (DL) in the classification of optical coherence tomography (OCT) images of macular diseases between automated classification alone and in combination with automated segmentation. OCT images were collected from patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, diabetic macular edema, retinal vein occlusion, cystoid macular edema in Irvine-Gass syndrome, and other macular diseases, along with the normal fellow eyes. A total of 14,327 OCT images were used to train DL models. Three experiments were conducted: classification alone (CA), use of automated segmentation of the OCT images by RelayNet, and the graph-cut technique before the classification (combination method 1 (CM1) and 2 (CM2), respectively). For validation of classification of the macular diseases, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CA were found at 62.55%, 95.16%, and 93.14%, respectively, whereas the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CM1 were found at 72.90%, 96.20%, and 93.92%, respectively, and of CM2 at 71.36%, 96.42%, and 94.80%, respectively. The accuracy of CM2 was statistically higher than that of CA (

Indexed as

image classificationmacular diseaseOCT

Identifiers

PMID36672999
PMCPMC9858554
OpenAlexW4313500023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.