ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2023
A new software for automated counting of glistenings in intraocular lenses
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the performance of a bespoke software for automated counting of intraocular lens (IOL) glistenings in slit-lamp images.
methodsIOL glistenings from slit-lamp-derived digital images were counted manually and automatically by the bespoke software. The images of one randomly selected eye from each of 34 participants were used as a training set to determine the threshold setting that gave the best agreement between manual and automatic grading. A second set of 63 images, selected using randomised stratified sampling from 290 images, were used for software validation. The images were obtained using a previously described protocol. Software-derived automated glistenings counts were compared to manual counts produced by three ophthalmologists.
resultsA threshold value of 140 was determined that minimised the total deviation in the number of glistenings for the 34 images in the training set. Using this threshold value, only slight agreement was found between automated software counts and manual expert counts for the validating set of 63 images (
conclusionThe low levels of agreement show between an initial release of software used to automatically count glistenings in
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.