ArticleOphthalmology science
Strong versus Weak Data Labeling for Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in the Measurement of Geographic Atrophy.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Study of Macular Preservation and Geographic Atrophy Progression in Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Approaches for Geographic Atrophy Segmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Quantifying Geographic Atrophy in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comparative Analysis Across 12 Deep Learning Models.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Longitudinal Comparison of Geographic Atrophy Enlargement Using Manual, Semiautomated, and Deep Learning Approaches.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To gain an understanding of data labeling requirements to train deep learning models for measurement of geographic atrophy (GA) with fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images. Design: Evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Subjects: The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) images were used for training and cross-validation, and GA clinical trial images were used for testing. Methods: Training data consisted of 2 sets of FAF images; 1 with area measurements only and no indication of GA location (Weakly labeled) and the second with GA segmentation masks (Strongly labeled). Main Outcome Measures: Bland-Altman plots and scatter plots were used to compare GA area measurement between ground truth and AI measurements. The Dice coefficient was used to compare accuracy of segmentation of the Strong model. Results: In the cross-validation AREDS2 data set (n = 601), the mean (standard deviation [SD]) area of GA measured by human grader, Weakly labeled AI model, and Strongly labeled AI model was 6.65 (6.3) mm Conclusions: Deep learning models can achieve reasonable accuracy even with Weakly labeled data. Training methods that integrate large volumes of Weakly labeled images with small number of Strongly labeled images offer a promising solution to overcome the burden of cost and time for data labeling. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.