ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluating deep learning models for classifying OCT images with limited data and noisy labels.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of Deep Learning in Classifying Age-Related Macular Degeneration From Images: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Efficient Ensemble Learning with Curriculum-Based Masked Autoencoders for Retinal OCT Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Intraocular Cytokine Level Prediction from Fundus Images and Optical Coherence Tomography.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
The use of deep learning for OCT image classification could enhance the diagnosis and monitoring of retinal diseases. However, challenges like variability in retinal abnormalities, noise, and artifacts in OCT images limit its clinical use. Our study aimed to evaluate the performance of various deep learning (DL) architectures in classifying retinal pathologies versus healthy cases based on OCT images, under data scarcity and label noise. We examined five DL architectures: ResNet18, ResNet34, ResNet50, VGG16, and InceptionV3. Fine-tuning of the pre-trained models was conducted on 5526 OCT images and reduced subsets down to 21 images to evaluate performance under data scarcity. The performance of models fine-tuned on subsets with label noise levels of 10%, 15%, and 20% was evaluated. All DL architectures achieved high classification accuracy (> 90%) with training sets of 345 or more images. InceptionV3 achieved the highest classification accuracy (99%) when trained on the entire training set. However, classification accuracy decreased and variability increased as sample size decreased. Label noise significantly affected model accuracy. Compensating for labeling errors of 10%, 15%, and 20% requires approximately 4, 9, and 14 times more images in the training set to reach the performance of 345 correctly labeled images. The results showed that DL models fine-tuned on sets of 345 or more OCT images can accurately classify retinal pathologies versus healthy controls. Our findings highlight that while mislabeling errors significantly impact classification performance in OCT analysis, this can be effectively mitigated by increasing the training sample size. By addressing data scarcity and labeling errors, our research aims to improve the real-world application and accuracy of retinal disease management.
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.