ArticleScientific reports2024
Deep learning segmentation of non-perfusion area from color fundus images and AI-generated fluorescein angiography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photobiology in ophthalmology: from evolutionary adaptation to translational therapeutics.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Governing Patient-Facing AI-Generated Video in Digital Health: A Risk-and-Ethics Matrix for Deployment, Monitoring, and Change Control.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Detecting Inflammation in Fundus Photographs Using Machine Learning.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Review
- Research progress in deep learning-based fundus image analysis for the diagnosis and prediction of hypertension-related diseases.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Retinal fundus image super-resolution based on generative adversarial network guided with vascular structure prior.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The non-perfusion area (NPA) of the retina is an important indicator in the visual prognosis of patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). However, the current evaluation method of NPA, fluorescein angiography (FA), is invasive and burdensome. In this study, we examined the use of deep learning models for detecting NPA in color fundus images, bypassing the need for FA, and we also investigated the utility of synthetic FA generated from color fundus images. The models were evaluated using the Dice score and Monte Carlo dropout uncertainty. We retrospectively collected 403 sets of color fundus and FA images from 319 BRVO patients. We trained three deep learning models on FA, color fundus images, and synthetic FA. As a result, though the FA model achieved the highest score, the other two models also performed comparably. We found no statistical significance in median Dice scores between the models. However, the color fundus model showed significantly higher uncertainty than the other models (p < 0.05). In conclusion, deep learning models can detect NPAs from color fundus images with reasonable accuracy, though with somewhat less prediction stability. Synthetic FA stabilizes the prediction and reduces misleading uncertainty estimates by enhancing image quality.
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.