Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38827491›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Strong versus Weak Data Labeling for Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in the Measurement of Geographic Atrophy.

Amitha Domalpally, Robert Slater, Rachel E Linderman, Rohit Balaji, Jacob Bogost, Rick Voland, Jeong Pak, Barbara A Blodi, Roomasa Channa, Donald Fong and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Amitha DomalpallyA-EYE Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Robert SlaterA-EYE Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Rachel E LindermanA-EYE Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Rohit BalajiWisconsin Reading Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Jacob BogostA-EYE Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Rick VolandWisconsin Reading Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Jeong PakWisconsin Reading Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Barbara A BlodiA-EYE Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Roomasa ChannaWisconsin Reading Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Donald FongAnnexon Biosciences, Brisbane, California.
Emily Y ChewDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceData labelingDry AMDGeographic atrophy

Identifiers

PMID38827491
PMCPMC11141255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.