ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluating the Effect of Image Enhancement on Diagnostic Reliability in Dry Eye Disease Using a Portable Imaging Device.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Deep Learning Model to Estimate Anemia from Palpebral Conjunctiva Taken with a Portable Slit-Lamp Microscope.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Smartphone-Based Portable Slit Lamp in Anterior Segment Diseases: A Narrative Review of Clinical Assessment and Integration with Artificial Intelligence.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of image enhancement techniques on the interobserver reliability of tear break-up time (TBUT), tear meniscus height (TMH), corneal fluorescein staining (CFS) scoring, and conjunctivochalasis detection using the Smart Eye Camera (SEC), a portable device for anterior segment examination.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on video recordings captured by the SEC from 46 patients with dry eye disease (DED). Separate sets of images were created for each level of enhancement: unenhanced (G0), mildly enhanced (G3), and strongly enhanced (G7). These sets were not intermixed, ensuring that each enhancement level was assessed independently. Three observers-two DED specialists and one general ophthalmologist-assessed TBUT, TMH, CFS scores, and conjunctivochalasis. Interobserver reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each image set.
resultsInterobserver reliability for CFS scores significantly improved with G3, yielding an ICC of 0.8413. In contrast, G7 improved reliability for TBUT measurements (ICC = 0.7381), but led to a notable decrease in reliability for both CFS scoring (ICC = 0.2259) and conjunctivochalasis detection (ICC = 0.0786). Furthermore, the assessment of TMH demonstrated a progressive decline in accuracy with increasing levels of image enhancement.
conclusionsImage enhancement using the SEC improved the diagnostic consistency of dry eye specialists and general ophthalmologists, especially for TBUT and CFS assessments. However, excessive enhancement may obscure key diagnostic features, indicating the need for careful optimization of image processing techniques depending on the diagnostic focus.
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.