ArticleScientific reports2023
Towards population-independent, multi-disease detection in fundus photographs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A robust deep learning classifier for screening multiple retinal diseases on optical coherence tomography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Independent validation studies of automatic diabetic retinopathy screening systems have recently shown a drop of screening performance on external data. Beyond diabetic retinopathy, this study investigates the generalizability of deep learning (DL) algorithms for screening various ocular anomalies in fundus photographs, across heterogeneous populations and imaging protocols. The following datasets are considered: OPHDIAT (France, diabetic population), OphtaMaine (France, general population), RIADD (India, general population) and ODIR (China, general population). Two multi-disease DL algorithms were developed: a Single-Dataset (SD) network, trained on the largest dataset (OPHDIAT), and a Multiple-Dataset (MD) network, trained on multiple datasets simultaneously. To assess their generalizability, both algorithms were evaluated whenever training and test data originate from overlapping datasets or from disjoint datasets. The SD network achieved a mean per-disease area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (mAUC) of 0.9571 on OPHDIAT. However, it generalized poorly to the other three datasets (mAUC < 0.9). When all four datasets were involved in training, the MD network significantly outperformed the SD network (p = 0.0058), indicating improved generality. However, in leave-one-dataset-out experiments, performance of the MD network was significantly lower on populations unseen during training than on populations involved in training (p < 0.0001), indicating imperfect generalizability.
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.