ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
A Convolutional Neural Network Using Anterior Segment Photos for Infectious Keratitis Identification.
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.
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.
- A Review of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology Imaging: Approximation to Ocular Histopathology.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2026Review
- Article
- Leakage-Aware Visit-Level Benchmarking Reveals Representational Overlap in Deep Learning for Bacterial Versus Fungal Keratitis Classification.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Application in Cornea and External Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.