ArticleScientific reports2024
Establishment of a corneal ulcer prognostic model based on machine learning.
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 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.
- Analysis and implications of validation results for a clinical data-based early warning model for geriatric sepsis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- E2F expression profiling-based subtypes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: clinical relevance, prognostic implications, and personalized therapy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Pharmaceutical and Therapeutic Applications of Royal Jelly for Ocular Surface Diseases: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2025Review
- Ensemble Machine Learning Approaches for Automated Fungal Keratitis Diagnosis Using In Vivo Confocal Microscopy Images.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Corneal infection is a major public health concern worldwide and the most common cause of unilateral corneal blindness. Toxic effects of different microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, worsen keratitis leading to corneal perforation even with optimal drug treatment. The cornea forms the main refractive surface of the eye. Diseases affecting the cornea can cause severe visual impairment. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze the risk of corneal perforation and visual impairment in corneal ulcer patients for making early treatment strategies. The modeling of a fully automated prognostic model system was performed in two parts. In the first part, the dataset contained 4973 slit lamp images of corneal ulcer patients in three centers. A deep learning model was developed and tested for segmenting and classifying five lesions (corneal ulcer, corneal scar, hypopyon, corneal descementocele, and corneal neovascularization) in the eyes of corneal ulcer patients. Further, hierarchical quantification was carried out based on policy rules. In the second part, the dataset included clinical data (name, gender, age, best corrected visual acuity, and type of corneal ulcer) of 240 patients with corneal ulcers and respective 1010 slit lamp images under two light sources (natural light and cobalt blue light). The slit lamp images were then quantified hierarchically according to the policy rules developed in the first part of the modeling. Combining the above clinical data, the features were used to build the final prognostic model system for corneal ulcer perforation outcome and visual impairment using machine learning algorithms such as XGBoost, LightGBM. The ROC curve area (AUC value) evaluated the model's performance. For segmentation of the five lesions, the accuracy rates of hypopyon, descemetocele, corneal ulcer under blue light, and corneal neovascularization were 96.86, 91.64, 90.51, and 93.97, respectively. For the corneal scar lesion classification, the accuracy rate of the final model was 69.76. The XGBoost model performed the best in predicting the 1-month prognosis of patients, with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63-1.00) for ulcer perforation and an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.91) for visual impairment. In predicting the 3-month prognosis of patients, the XGBoost model received the best AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.92-1.00) for ulcer perforation, while the LightGBM model achieved the best performance with an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.94-1.00) for visual impairment.
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.