ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2024
Interpretable Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnosis Based on Biomarker Activation Map.
Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinically Explainable Disease Diagnosis Based on Biomarker Activation Map.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- Mapping the Ischemic Continuum: Dynamic Multi-Omic Biomarker and AI for Personalized Stroke Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Advances in OCT Angiography.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Review
- Advances in Structural and Functional Retinal Imaging and Biomarkers for Early Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- OCT angiography 2023 update: focus on diabetic retinopathy.Acta diabetologica · 2024Review
- OCT angiography and its retinal biomarkers [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2023Review
- Reverse translation of artificial intelligence in glaucoma: Connecting basic science with clinical applications.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDeep learning classifiers provide the most accurate means of automatically diagnosing diabetic retinopathy (DR) based on optical coherence tomography (OCT) and its angiography (OCTA). The power of these models is attributable in part to the inclusion of hidden layers that provide the complexity required to achieve a desired task. However, hidden layers also render algorithm outputs difficult to interpret. Here we introduce a novel biomarker activation map (BAM) framework based on generative adversarial learning that allows clinicians to verify and understand classifiers' decision-making.
methodsA data set including 456 macular scans were graded as non-referable or referable DR based on current clinical standards. A DR classifier that was used to evaluate our BAM was first trained based on this data set. The BAM generation framework was designed by combing two U-shaped generators to provide meaningful interpretability to this classifier. The main generator was trained to take referable scans as input and produce an output that would be classified by the classifier as non-referable. The BAM is then constructed as the difference image between the output and input of the main generator. To ensure that the BAM only highlights classifier-utilized biomarkers an assistant generator was trained to do the opposite, producing scans that would be classified as referable by the classifier from non-referable scans.
resultsThe generated BAMs highlighted known pathologic features including nonperfusion area and retinal fluid. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: A fully interpretable classifier based on these highlights could help clinicians better utilize and verify automated DR diagnosis.
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.