Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37184500›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023

Deep Learning Using Preoperative AS-OCT Predicts Graft Detachment in DMEK.

Alastair Patefield, Yanda Meng, Matteo Airaldi, Giulia Coco, Sabrina Vaccaro, Mohit Parekh, Francesco Semeraro, Kunal A Gadhvi, Stephen B Kaye, Yalin Zheng and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Artificial intelligence in corneal diseases: A narrative review.Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Alastair PatefieldDepartment of Eye and Vision Sciences, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Yanda MengDepartment of Eye and Vision Sciences, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Matteo AiraldiDepartment of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Giulia CocoDepartment of Corneal Diseases, St. Paul's Eye Unit, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Sabrina VaccaroDepartment of Corneal Diseases, St. Paul's Eye Unit, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Mohit ParekhSchepens Eye Research Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Francesco SemeraroOphthalmology Clinic, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Kunal A GadhviDepartment of Eye and Vision Sciences, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Stephen B KayeDepartment of Eye and Vision Sciences, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Yalin ZhengDepartment of Eye and Vision Sciences, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Vito RomanoDepartment of Eye and Vision Sciences, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate a novel deep learning algorithm to distinguish between eyes that may or may not have a graft detachment based on pre-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) images. Methods: Retrospective cohort study. A multiple-instance learning artificial intelligence (MIL-AI) model using a ResNet-101 backbone was designed. AS-OCT images were split into training and testing sets. The MIL-AI model was trained and validated on the training set. Model performance and heatmaps were calculated from the testing set. Classification performance metrics included F1 score (harmonic mean of recall and precision), specificity, sensitivity, and area under curve (AUC). Finally, MIL-AI performance was compared to manual classification by an experienced ophthalmologist. Results: In total, 9466 images of 74 eyes (128 images per eye) were included in the study. Images from 50 eyes were used to train and validate the MIL-AI system, while the remaining 24 eyes were used as the test set to determine its performance and generate heatmaps for visualization. The performance metrics on the test set (95% confidence interval) were as follows: F1 score, 0.77 (0.57-0.91); precision, 0.67 (0.44-0.88); specificity, 0.45 (0.15-0.75); sensitivity, 0.92 (0.73-1.00); and AUC, 0.63 (0.52-0.86). MIL-AI performance was more sensitive (92% vs. 31%) but less specific (45% vs. 64%) than the ophthalmologist's performance. Conclusions: The MIL-AI predicts with high sensitivity the eyes that may have post-DMEK graft detachment requiring rebubbling. Larger-scale clinical trials are warranted to validate the model. Translational Relevance: MIL-AI models represent an opportunity for implementation in routine DMEK suitability screening.

Indexed as

Corneal DiseasesDeep LearningDescemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyArtificial IntelligenceEndothelium, CornealHumansRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID37184500
PMCPMC10187791

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.