Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39801570›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

A Convolutional Neural Network Using Anterior Segment Photos for Infectious Keratitis Identification.

Vannarut Satitpitakul, Apiwit Puangsricharern, Surachet Yuktiratna, Yossapon Jaisarn, Keeratika Sangsao, Vilavun Puangsricharern, Ngamjit Kasetsuwan, Usanee Reinprayoon, Thanachaporn Kittipibul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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. A Review of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology Imaging: Approximation to Ocular Histopathology.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

9 authors.

Vannarut SatitpitakulCenter of Excellence for Cornea and Stem Cell Transplantation, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-1020-6833
Apiwit PuangsricharernIM Impower Company Limited, Bangkok, Thailand.
Surachet YuktiratnaIM Impower Company Limited, Bangkok, Thailand.
Yossapon JaisarnFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Keeratika SangsaoFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Vilavun PuangsricharernCenter of Excellence for Cornea and Stem Cell Transplantation, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-0725-456X
Ngamjit KasetsuwanCenter of Excellence for Cornea and Stem Cell Transplantation, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1926-4666
Usanee ReinprayoonCenter of Excellence for Cornea and Stem Cell Transplantation, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thanachaporn KittipibulCenter of Excellence for Cornea and Stem Cell Transplantation, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a comprehensively deep learning algorithm to differentiate between bacterial keratitis, fungal keratitis, non-infectious corneal lesions, and normal corneas. Methods: This retrospective study collected slit-lamp photos of patients with bacterial keratitis, fungal keratitis, non-infectious corneal lesions, and normal cornea. Causative organisms of infectious keratitis were identified by either positive culture or clinical response to single treatment. Convolutional neural networks (ResNet50, DenseNet121, VGG19) and Ensemble with probability weighting were used to develop a deep learning algorithm. The performance including accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, specificity and AUC has been reported. Results: Total of 6478 photos from 2171 eyes, composed of 2400 bacterial keratitis, 1616 fungal keratitis, 1545 non-infectious corneal lesions, and 917 normal corneas were collected from hospital database. DenseNet121 demonstrated the best performance among three convolutional neural networks with the accuracy of 0.8 (95% CI 0.74-0.86). The ensemble technique showed higher performance than single algorithm with the accuracy of 0.83 (95% 0.78-0.88). Conclusion: Convolutional neural networks with ensemble techniques provided the best performance in discriminating bacterial keratitis, fungal keratitis, non-infectious corneal lesions, and normal corneas. Our models can be used as a screening tool for non-ophthalmic health care providers and ophthalmologists for rapid provisional diagnosis of infectious keratitis.

Indexed as

conventional neural networkcornea ulcerdeep learning algorithminfectious keratitiskeratitis

Identifiers

PMID39801570
PMCPMC11724627

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.