ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2023
Biomedical Data Annotation: An OCT Imaging Case Study.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic target volume segmentation for offline adaptive head-and-neck radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Incremental 2D self-labelling for effective 3D medical volume segmentation with minimal annotations.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Harnessing Advanced Machine Learning Techniques for Microscopic Vessel Segmentation in Pulmonary Fibrosis Using Novel Hierarchical Phase-Contrast Tomography Images.Methods of information in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In ophthalmology, optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a widely used imaging modality, allowing visualisation of the structures of the eye with objective and quantitative cross-sectional three-dimensional (3D) volumetric scans. Due to the quantity of data generated from OCT scans and the time taken for an ophthalmologist to inspect for various disease pathology features, automated image analysis in the form of deep neural networks has seen success for the classification and segmentation of OCT layers and quantification of features. However, existing high-performance deep learning approaches rely on huge training datasets with high-quality annotations, which are challenging to obtain in many clinical applications. The collection of annotations from less experienced clinicians has the potential to alleviate time constraints from more senior clinicians, allowing faster data collection of medical image annotations; however, with less experience, there is the possibility of reduced annotation quality. In this study, we evaluate the quality of diabetic macular edema (DME) intraretinal fluid (IRF) biomarker image annotations on OCT B-scans from five clinicians with a range of experience. We also assess the effectiveness of annotating across multiple sessions following a training session led by an expert clinician. Our investigation shows a notable variance in annotation performance, with a correlation that depends on the clinician's experience with OCT image interpretation of DME, and that having multiple annotation sessions has a limited effect on the annotation quality.
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.