Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39618988›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Advanced Analysis of OCT/OCTA Images for Accurately Differentiating Between Glaucoma and Healthy Eyes Using Deep Learning Techniques.

Sayeh Pourjavan, François Gouverneur, Benoit Macq, Thomas Van Drooghenbroeck, Patrick De Potter, Antonella Boschi, Adil El Maftouhi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. 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. Review
  2. Article
  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

7 authors.

Sayeh PourjavanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6235-0813
François GouverneurInstitute for Information and Communication Technologies, Electronics, and Applied Mathematics (ICTEAM), Louvain School of Engineering, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Benoit MacqInstitute for Information and Communication Technologies, Electronics, and Applied Mathematics (ICTEAM), Louvain School of Engineering, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Thomas Van DrooghenbroeckInstitute for Information and Communication Technologies, Electronics, and Applied Mathematics (ICTEAM), Louvain School of Engineering, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.ORCID 0009-0008-0195-104X
Patrick De PotterDepartment of Ophthalmology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium.
Antonella BoschiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium.
Adil El MaftouhiCentre Ophtalmologique de RIVE, Geneve, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the discriminative power of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images, identifying the best image combination for differentiating glaucoma from healthy eyes using deep learning (DL) with a convolutional neural network (CNN). Methods: This cross-sectional study included 157 subjects contributing 1,106 eye scans. We used en-face images of the superficial and choroid layers for OCTA-based vessel density and OCT-based structural thickness of the macula (M) and optic disc (D). Images were preprocessed, resized, and normalized for CNN analysis. The CNN architecture had two components: one extracted features for each image type (OCT-D, OCT-M, OCTA-D, OCTA-M), while the second combined these features to classify eyes as healthy or glaucomatous. Performance was measured by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). Results: For OCT images, the D+M combination outperformed disc (D) or macula (M) alone in three of the four metrics. For OCTA images, D+M also performed better than D or M alone, with D+M outperforming disc (D) in all criteria. Across all metrics for combined OCT+OCTA images, D+M performed better than D or M alone, and the macula (M) outperformed the disc (D). In disc (D) imaging, OCTA outperformed both OCT and OCT+OCTA in accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, while OCT+OCTA had a higher AUC. OCTA consistently outperformed OCT and OCT+OCTA across all metrics for combined D+M images. Conclusion: The OCTA D+M combination performed best, followed by the OCT+OCTA D+M combination. When both en-face images are available, OCTA is preferred. Always include both disc and macula images for optimal diagnosis.

Indexed as

AI-Glau-OCTA, health expendituredeep learningglaucomamaculaOCTAoptic discvessel density

Identifiers

PMID39618988
PMCPMC11607993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.