ArticlePloS one2024
Deep learning-based correction of cataract-induced influence on macular pigment optical density measurement by autofluorescence spectroscopy.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Xanthophyll Carotenoid Intake, Plasma Levels, and Retinal Visualization in Aging and Age-Related Macular Degeneration: ALSTAR2.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Autofluorescence and deep learning in early disease detection: biological foundations, clinical applications, and future directions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Advanced Analysis Tools for Two Wavelength Autofluorescence Imaging of Macular Xanthophyll Carotenoids: ALSTAR2 Baseline.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of a Portable Handheld Heterochromatic Flicker Photometer in Measuring Macular Pigment Optical Density.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Macular pigment optical density and measurement technology based on artificial intelligence: a narrative review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMeasurements of macular pigment optical density (MPOD) using the autofluorescence spectroscopy yield underestimations of actual values in eyes with cataracts. Previously, we proposed a correction method for this error using deep learning (DL); however, the correction performance was validated through internal cross-validation. This cross-sectional study aimed to validate this approach using an external validation dataset.
methodsMPODs at 0.25°, 0.5°, 1°, and 2° eccentricities and macular pigment optical volume (MPOV) within 9° eccentricity were measured using SPECTRALIS (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) in 197 (training dataset inherited from our previous study) and 157 eyes (validating dataset) before and after cataract surgery. A DL model was trained to predict the corrected value from the pre-operative value using the training dataset, and we measured the discrepancy between the corrected value and the actual postoperative value. Subsequently, the prediction performance was validated using a validation dataset.
resultsUsing the validation dataset, the mean absolute values of errors for MPOD and MPOV corrected using DL ranged from 8.2 to 12.4%, which were lower than values with no correction (P < 0.001, linear mixed model with Tukey's test). The error depended on the autofluorescence image quality used to calculate MPOD. The mean errors in high and moderate quality images ranged from 6.0 to 11.4%, which were lower than those of poor quality images.
conclusionThe usefulness of the DL correction method was validated. Deep learning reduced the error for a relatively good autofluorescence image quality. Poor-quality images were not corrected.
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.