Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37605208›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2023

Fairness and generalizability of OCT normative databases: a comparative analysis.

Luis Filipe Nakayama, Lucas Zago Ribeiro, Juliana Angelica Estevão de Oliveira, João Carlos Ramos Gonçalves de Matos, William Greig Mitchell, Fernando Korn Malerbi, Leo Anthony Celi, Caio Vinicius Saito Regatieri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

8 authors.

Luis Filipe NakayamaLaboratory of Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA, 02139, United States of America. luisnaka@mit.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6847-6748
Lucas Zago RibeiroDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9130-1500
Juliana Angelica Estevão de OliveiraDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
João Carlos Ramos Gonçalves de MatosLaboratory of Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA, 02139, United States of America.
William Greig MitchellDepartment of Ophthalmology, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2122-6741
Fernando Korn MalerbiDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6523-5172
Leo Anthony CeliLaboratory of Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA, 02139, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-6626
Caio Vinicius Saito RegatieriDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1511-8696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn supervised Machine Learning algorithms, labels and reports are important in model development. To provide a normality assessment, the OCT has an in-built normative database that provides a color base scale from the measurement database comparison. This article aims to evaluate and compare normative databases of different OCT machines, analyzing patient demographic, contrast inclusion and exclusion criteria, diversity index, and statistical approach to assess their fairness and generalizability.

methodsData were retrieved from Cirrus, Avanti, Spectralis, and Triton's FDA-approval and equipment manual. The following variables were compared: number of eyes and patients, inclusion and exclusion criteria, statistical approach, sex, race and ethnicity, age, participant country, and diversity index.

resultsAvanti OCT has the largest normative database (640 eyes). In every database, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were similar, including adult patients and excluding pathological eyes. Spectralis has the largest White (79.7%) proportionately representation, Cirrus has the largest Asian (24%), and Triton has the largest Black (22%) patient representation. In all databases, the statistical analysis applied was Regression models. The sex diversity index is similar in all datasets, and comparable to the ten most populous contries. Avanti dataset has the highest diversity index in terms of race, followed by Cirrus, Triton, and Spectralis.

conclusionIn all analyzed databases, the data framework is static, with limited upgrade options and lacking normative databases for new modules. As a result, caution in OCT normality interpretation is warranted. To address these limitations, there is a need for more diverse, representative, and open-access datasets that take into account patient demographics, especially considering the development of supervised Machine Learning algorithms in healthcare.

Indexed as

DatabaseFairnessGeneralizabilityOptical coherence tomographySupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID37605208
PMCPMC10440930

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.