ArticleScientific reports2024
Validation of neuron activation patterns for artificial intelligence models in oculomics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have prompted researchers to expand into the field of oculomics; the association between the retina and systemic health. Unlike conventional AI models trained on well-recognized retinal features, the retinal phenotypes that most oculomics models use are more subtle. Consequently, applying conventional tools, such as saliency maps, to understand how oculomics models arrive at their inference is problematic and open to bias. We hypothesized that neuron activation patterns (NAPs) could be an alternative way to interpret oculomics models, but currently, most existing implementations focus on failure diagnosis. In this study, we designed a novel NAP framework to interpret an oculomics model. We then applied our framework to an AI model predicting systolic blood pressure from fundus images in the United Kingdom Biobank dataset. We found that the NAP generated from our framework was correlated to the clinically relevant endpoint of cardiovascular risk. Our NAP was also able to discern two biologically distinct groups among participants who were assigned the same predicted systolic blood pressure. These results demonstrate the feasibility of our proposed NAP framework for gaining deeper insights into the functioning of oculomics models. Further work is required to validate these results on external datasets.
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.