Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37360182›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Comparisons of artificial intelligence algorithms in automatic segmentation for fungal keratitis diagnosis by anterior segment images.

Dong-Jin Li, Bing-Lin Huang, Yuan Peng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

3 authors.

Dong-Jin LiHealth Management Center, The First People's Hospital of Jiujiang City, Jiujiang, Jiangxi, China.
Bing-Lin HuangCollege of Clinical Medicine, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Yuan PengDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

anterior segment imagesartificial intelligenceautomatic segmentationdiagnosisfungal keratitis

Identifiers

PMID37360182
PMCPMC10285049

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.