ArticleReumatologia2024
Automatic assessment of nailfold capillaroscopy software: a pilot study.
Article in Reumatologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nailfold Capillary Morphology as a Potential Biomarker of Cardiovascular or Metabolic Risk in Children Aged 3-17 Years Prenatally Exposed to Alcohol.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2026Article
- Nailfold capillaroscopy in rheumatic connective tissue diseases.Reumatologia · 2026Review
- Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence for Processing Medical Images.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Noninvasive Bedside Approaches for Assessing Microvascular Dysfunction.Journal of vascular research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Capillaroscopy is a simple method of nailfold capillary imaging, used to diagnose diseases from the systemic sclerosis spectrum. However, the assessment of the capillary image is time-consuming and subjective. This makes it difficult to use for a detailed comparison of studies assessed by various physicians. This pilot study aimed to validate software used for automatic capillary counting and image classification as normal or pathological. Material and methods: The study was based on the assessment of 200 capillaroscopic images obtained from patients suffering from systemic sclerosis or scleroderma spectrum diseases and healthy people. Dinolite MEDL4N Pro was used to perform capillaroscopy. Each image was analysed manually and described using working software. The neural network was trained using the fast.ai library (based on PyTorch). The ResNet-34 deep residual neural network was chosen; 10-fold cross-validation with the validation and test set was performed, using the Darknet-YoloV3 state of the art neural network in a GPU-optimized (P5000 GPU) environment. For the calculation of 1 mm capillaries, an additional detection mechanism was designed. Results: The results obtained under neural network training were compared to the results obtained in manual analysis. The sensitivity of the automatic tool relative to manual assessment in classification of correct vs. pathological images was 89.0%, specificity 89.4% for the training group, in validation 89.0% and 86.9% respectively. For the average number of capillaries in 1 mm the precision of real images detected within the region of interest was 96.48%. Conclusions: The pilot software for fully automatic capillaroscopic image assessment can be a useful tool for the rapid classification of a normal and altered capillaroscopy pattern. In addition, it allows one to quickly calculate the number of capillaries. In the future, the tool will be developed and will make it possible to obtain full imaging characteristics independent of the experience of the examiner.
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.