ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Evaluating the Influence of Clinical Data on Inter-Observer Variability in Optic Disc Analysis for AI-Assisted Glaucoma Screening.
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 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.
- Comprehensive Review of Open-Source Fundus Image Databases for Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- AI-Based Ocular Age Estimation from Combined OCT and OCTA Metrics: Decade-Stratified Normative Modelling in Healthy Eyes - a Pilot Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the inter-observer variability in assessing the optic disc in fundus photographs and its implications for establishing ground truth in AI research. Methods: Seventy subjects were screened during a screening campaign. Fundus photographs were classified into normal (NL) or abnormal (GS: glaucoma and glaucoma suspects) by two masked glaucoma specialists. Referrals were based on these classifications, followed by intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, with rapid decisions simulating busy outpatient clinics.In the second stage, four glaucoma specialists independently categorized images as normal, suspect, or glaucomatous. Reassessments were conducted with access to IOP and contralateral eye data. Results: In the first stage, the agreement between senior and junior specialists in categorizing patients as normal or abnormal was moderately high. Knowledge of IOP emerged as an independent factor influencing the decision to refer more patients. In the second stage, agreement among the four specialists varied, with greater concordance observed when additional clinical information was available. Notably, there was a statistically significant variability in the assessment of optic disc excavation. Conclusion: The inclusion of various risk factors significantly influences the classification accuracy of specialists. Risk factors like IOP and bilateral data influence diagnostic consistency among specialists. Reliance solely on fundus photographs for AI training can be misleading due to inter-observer variability. Comprehensive datasets integrating multimodal clinical information are essential for developing robust AI models for glaucoma screening.
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.