ArticleEquine veterinary journal2025
Comparison of veterinarians and a deep learning tool in the diagnosis of equine ophthalmic diseases.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2025. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of veterinarians and a deep learning tool in the diagnosis of equine ophthalmic diseases.Equine veterinary journal · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe aim was to compare ophthalmic diagnoses made by veterinarians to a deep learning (artificial intelligence) software tool which was developed to aid in the diagnosis of equine ophthalmic diseases. As equine ophthalmology is a very specialised field in equine medicine, the tool may be able to help in diagnosing equine ophthalmic emergencies such as uveitis. STUDY
designIn silico tool development and assessment of diagnostic performance.
methodsA deep learning tool which was developed and trained for classification of equine ophthalmic diseases was tested with 40 photographs displaying various equine ophthalmic diseases. The same data set was shown to different groups of veterinarians (equine, small animal, mixed practice, other) using an opinion poll to compare the results and evaluate the performance of the programme. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) were trained on 2346 photographs of equine eyes, which were augmented to 9384 images. Two hundred and sixty-one separate unmodified images were used to evaluate the trained network. The trained deep learning tool was used on 40 photographs of equine eyes (10 healthy, 12 uveitis, 18 other diseases). An opinion poll was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 148 veterinarians in comparison to the software tool.
resultsThe probability for the correct answer was 93% for the AI programme. Equine veterinarians answered correctly in 76%, whereas other veterinarians reached 67% probability for the correct diagnosis. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Diagnosis was solely based on images of equine eyes without the possibility to evaluate the inner eye.
conclusionsThe deep learning tool proved to be at least equivalent to veterinarians in assessing ophthalmic diseases in photographs. We therefore conclude that the software tool may be useful in detecting potential emergency cases. In this context, blindness in horses may be prevented as the horse can receive accurate treatment or can be sent to an equine hospital. Furthermore, the tool gives less experienced veterinarians the opportunity to differentiate between uveitis and other ocular anterior segment disease and to support them in their decision-making regarding treatment.
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.