Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38446200›Full record

ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

Comparing code-free and bespoke deep learning approaches in ophthalmology.

Carolyn Yu Tung Wong, Ciara O'Byrne, Priyal Taribagil, Timing Liu, Fares Antaki, Pearse Andrew Keane

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Carolyn Yu Tung WongInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath St, London, EC1V 9EL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-3592-1326
Ciara O'ByrneInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath St, London, EC1V 9EL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5172-0030
Priyal TaribagilInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath St, London, EC1V 9EL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6516-3615
Timing LiuInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath St, London, EC1V 9EL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2834-3040
Fares AntakiInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath St, London, EC1V 9EL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6679-7276
Pearse Andrew KeaneInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath St, London, EC1V 9EL, UK. p.keane@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9239-745X
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T019050/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimCode-free deep learning (CFDL) allows clinicians without coding expertise to build high-quality artificial intelligence (AI) models without writing code. In this review, we comprehensively review the advantages that CFDL offers over bespoke expert-designed deep learning (DL). As exemplars, we use the following tasks: (1) diabetic retinopathy screening, (2) retinal multi-disease classification, (3) surgical video classification, (4) oculomics and (5) resource management.

methodsWe performed a search for studies reporting CFDL applications in ophthalmology in MEDLINE (through PubMed) from inception to June 25, 2023, using the keywords 'autoML' AND 'ophthalmology'. After identifying 5 CFDL studies looking at our target tasks, we performed a subsequent search to find corresponding bespoke DL studies focused on the same tasks. Only English-written articles with full text available were included. Reviews, editorials, protocols and case reports or case series were excluded. We identified ten relevant studies for this review.

resultsOverall, studies were optimistic towards CFDL's advantages over bespoke DL in the five ophthalmological tasks. However, much of such discussions were identified to be mono-dimensional and had wide applicability gaps. High-quality assessment of better CFDL applicability over bespoke DL warrants a context-specific, weighted assessment of clinician intent, patient acceptance and cost-effectiveness. We conclude that CFDL and bespoke DL are unique in their own assets and are irreplaceable with each other. Their benefits are differentially valued on a case-to-case basis. Future studies are warranted to perform a multidimensional analysis of both techniques and to improve limitations of suboptimal dataset quality, poor applicability implications and non-regulated study designs.

conclusionFor clinicians without DL expertise and easy access to AI experts, CFDL allows the prototyping of novel clinical AI systems. CFDL models concert with bespoke models, depending on the task at hand. A multidimensional, weighted evaluation of the factors involved in the implementation of those models for a designated task is warranted.

Indexed as

Deep LearningOphthalmologyHumansArtificial intelligenceAutomated-machine learningCode-free deep learningMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID38446200
PMCPMC11377500
OpenAlexW4392499405

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.