ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Comparisons of artificial intelligence algorithms in automatic segmentation for fungal keratitis diagnosis by anterior segment images.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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.
- Diagnostic performance of deep learning for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- nnSegNeXt: A 3D Convolutional Network for Brain Tissue Segmentation Based on Quality Evaluation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Application of Deep Learning Algorithms Based on the Multilayer Y0L0v8 Neural Network to Identify Fungal Keratitis.Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Infectious Keratitis: Where Are We Now?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study combines automatic segmentation and manual fine-tuning with an early fusion method to provide efficient clinical auxiliary diagnostic efficiency for fungal keratitis. Methods: First, 423 high-quality anterior segment images of keratitis were collected in the Department of Ophthalmology of the Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital (China). The images were divided into fungal keratitis and non-fungal keratitis by a senior ophthalmologist, and all images were divided randomly into training and testing sets at a ratio of 8:2. Then, two deep learning models were constructed for diagnosing fungal keratitis. Model 1 included a deep learning model composed of the DenseNet 121, mobienet_v2, and squeezentet1_0 models, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) model, and the multi-layer perception (MLP) classifier. Model 2 included an automatic segmentation program and the deep learning model already described. Finally, the performance of Model 1 and Model 2 was compared. Results: In the testing set, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of Model 1 reached 77.65, 86.05, 76.19, 81.42%, and 0.839, respectively. For Model 2, accuracy improved by 6.87%, sensitivity by 4.43%, specificity by 9.52%, F1-score by 7.38%, and AUC by 0.086, respectively. Conclusion: The models in our study could provide efficient clinical auxiliary diagnostic efficiency for fungal keratitis.
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.