Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37540261›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

An auxiliary diagnostic tool for common fundus diseases based on fundus color photography and light-weight classification models.

Jin-Da Wang, Mei-Rui Liu, Mei-Ling Liu, Ran Zhang, Chang-Xi Chen, Kai Cao

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jin-Da WangBeijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Mei-Rui LiuSchool of Public Health, North China University of Science and Technology, Weifang, China.
Mei-Ling LiuDahongmen Community Health Service Center, Beijing, China.
Ran ZhangMajiapu Community Health Service Center, Beijing, China.
Chang-Xi ChenBeijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.17. Hougou Alley, Dongcheng District, Beijing, China. chenchangxi2013@163.com.
Kai CaoBeijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.17. Hougou Alley, Dongcheng District, Beijing, China. caozhi@ccmu.edu.cn.
Beijing Tongren Hospital · CNNorth China University of Science and Technology · CNCapital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of two lightweight neural network models in the diagnosis of common fundus diseases and make comparison to another two classical models.

methodsA total of 16,000 color fundus photography were collected, including 2000 each of glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy (DR), high myopia, central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), age-related macular degeneration (AMD), optic neuropathy, and central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC), in addition to 2000 normal fundus. Fundus photography was obtained from patients or physical examiners who visited the Ophthalmology Department of Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University. Each fundus photography has been diagnosed and labeled by two professional ophthalmologists. Two classical classification models (ResNet152 and DenseNet121), and two lightweight classification models (MobileNetV3 and ShufflenetV2), were trained. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were used to evaluate the performance of the four models.

resultsCompared with the classical classification model, the total size and number of parameters of the two lightweight classification models were significantly reduced, and the classification speed was sharply improved. Compared with the DenseNet121 model, the ShufflenetV2 model took 50.7% less time to make a diagnosis on a fundus photography. The classical models performed better than lightweight classification models, and Densenet121 showed highest AUC in five out of the seven common fundus diseases. However, the performance of lightweight classification models is satisfying. The AUCs using MobileNetV3 model to diagnose AMD, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, CRVO, high myopia, optic atrophy, and CSC were 0.805, 0.892, 0.866, 0.812, 0.887, 0.868, and 0.803, respectively. For ShufflenetV2model, the AUCs for the above seven diseases were 0.856, 0.893, 0.855, 0.884, 0.891, 0.867, and 0.844, respectively.

conclusionThe training of light-weight neural network models based on color fundus photography for the diagnosis of common fundus diseases is not only fast but also has a significant reduction in storage size and parameter number compared with the classical classification model, and can achieve satisfactory accuracy.

Indexed as

Diabetic RetinopathyGlaucomaMacular DegenerationMyopiaDiagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalFundus OculiHumansPhotographyAuxiliary diagnosisEye fundus diseasesLightweight neural network model

Identifiers

PMID37540261
OpenAlexW4385563624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.