ArticleSichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition2023
[Application of Deep Learning Algorithm in the Grading Assessment of Corneal Fluorescein Staining].
Article in Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition, 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.
- [Identifying Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia With CT Images: A Deep Learning Approach With Detail Upsampling and Attention Guidance].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the application value of applying deep learning (DL) algorithm in the grading assessment of corneal fluorescein staining. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out, covering 600 corneal fluorescein staining photos acquired in the Contact Lens Clinic, West China Hospital, Sichuan University between 2020 and 2022. Out of the 600 photos, 500 were used to construct the algorithm and the remaining 100 were used for the validation of the algorithm and a comparative analysis of the difference in grading accuracy (ACC) and the length of diagnostic time between artificial intelligence (AI) and optometry students. One month after finishing the first grading analysis, assessment by AI and optometry students was conducted for a second time and results from the two rounds of assessment were compared to examine the intrarater agreement ( Results: Findings of the cross validation with the complete dataset, the training dataset, and the test dataset showed that ResNet34 had the highest predictive accuracy among four DL models. ResNet34 DL model achieved an accuracy of 93.0%, sensitivity of 89.5%, and specificity of 89.6% in the grading of corneal staining. In the comparison of the grading accuracy of AI and two optometry students, AI showed better accuracy, with the respective grading accuracy being 87.0%, 78.0%, and 52.0% for AI, student 1, and student 2 ( Conclusion: Applying deep learning algorithms in the grading assessment of corneal fluorescein staining has considerable feasibility and clinical value. In the performance comparison between AI and optometry students, AI achieved higher accuracy and better consistency, which indicates that AI has potential application value for assisting optometrists to make clinical decisions with speed and accuracy.
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.