Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39046755›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024

Quantifying Geographic Atrophy in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comparative Analysis Across 12 Deep Learning Models.

Apoorva Safai, Colin Froines, Robert Slater, Rachel E Linderman, Jacob Bogost, Caleb Pacheco, Rickie Voland, Jeong Pak, Pallavi Tiwari, Roomasa Channa and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Apoorva SafaiA-EYE Research Unit, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Colin FroinesWisconsin Reading Center, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Robert SlaterA-EYE Research Unit, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Rachel E LindermanA-EYE Research Unit, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Jacob BogostA-EYE Research Unit, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Caleb PachecoA-EYE Research Unit, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Rickie VolandWisconsin Reading Center, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Jeong PakWisconsin Reading Center, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Pallavi TiwariDepts of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Roomasa ChannaA-EYE Research Unit, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Amitha DomalpallyA-EYE Research Unit, Dept of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: AI algorithms have shown impressive performance in segmenting geographic atrophy (GA) from fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images. However, selection of artificial intelligence (AI) architecture is an important variable in model development. Here, we explore 12 distinct AI architecture combinations to determine the most effective approach for GA segmentation. Methods: We investigated various AI architectures, each with distinct combinations of encoders and decoders. The architectures included three decoders-FPN (Feature Pyramid Network), UNet, and PSPNet (Pyramid Scene Parsing Network)-and serve as the foundation framework for segmentation task. Encoders including EfficientNet, ResNet (Residual Networks), VGG (Visual Geometry Group) and Mix Vision Transformer (mViT) have a role in extracting optimum latent features for accurate GA segmentation. Performance was measured through comparison of GA areas between human and AI predictions and Dice Coefficient (DC). Results: The training dataset included 601 FAF images from AREDS2 study and validation included 156 FAF images from the GlaxoSmithKline study. The mean absolute difference between grader measured and AI predicted areas ranged from -0.08 (95% CI = -1.35, 1.19) to 0.73 mm2 (95% CI = -5.75,4.29) and DC between 0.884-0.993. The best-performing models were UNet and FPN frameworks with mViT, and the least-performing models were PSPNet framework. Conclusions: The choice of AI architecture impacts GA segmentation performance. Vision transformers with FPN and UNet architectures demonstrate stronger suitability for this task compared to Convolutional Neural Network- and PSPNet-based models. Selecting an AI architecture must be tailored to the specific goals of the project, and developers should consider which architecture is ideal for their project.

Indexed as

Deep LearningGeographic AtrophyMacular DegenerationAgedAlgorithmsFemaleFluorescein AngiographyHumansMaleNeural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID39046755
PMCPMC11271806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.