Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39866343›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Multimodal Deep Learning for Differentiating Bacterial and Fungal Keratitis Using Prospective Representative Data.

N V Prajna, Jad Assaf, Nisha R Acharya, Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer, Thomas M Lietman, J Peter Campbell, Jeremy D Keenan, Xubo Song, Travis K Redd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Artificial intelligence in microbial keratitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

N V PrajnaAravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India.
Jad AssafCasey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Nisha R AcharyaFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Jennifer Rose-NussbaumerByers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Thomas M LietmanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
J Peter CampbellCasey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Jeremy D KeenanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Xubo SongCasey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Travis K ReddCasey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Funding

Proteomics CoreP30EY010572 · NEI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Kate E Keller · 1995 to 2026
$19.4M
Applications of artificial intelligence to the diagnostic evaluation of infectious keratitisK23EY032639 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Travis Kenneth Redd · 2022 to 2026
$1.3M
NEI NIH HHS K23 EY032639NEI NIH HHS P30 EY010572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study develops and evaluates multimodal machine learning models for differentiating bacterial and fungal keratitis using a prospective representative dataset from South India. Design: Machine learning classifier training and validation study. Participants: Five hundred ninety-nine subjects diagnosed with acute infectious keratitis at Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India. Methods: We developed and compared 3 prediction models to distinguish bacterial and fungal keratitis using a prospective, consecutively-collected, representative dataset gathered over a full calendar year (the MADURAI dataset). These models included a clinical data model, a computer vision model using the EfficientNet architecture, and a multimodal model combining both imaging and clinical data. We partitioned the MADURAI dataset into 70% train/validation and 30% test sets. Model training was performed with fivefold cross-validation. We also compared the performance of the MADURAI-trained computer vision model against a model with identical architecture but trained on a preexisting dataset collated from multiple prior bacterial and fungal keratitis randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (the RCT-trained computer vision model). Main Outcome Measures: The primary evaluation metric was the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Secondary metrics included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, and F1 score. Results: The MADURAI-trained computer vision model outperformed the clinical data model and the RCT-trained computer vision model on the hold-out test set, with an AUPRC 0.94 (95% confidence interval: 0.92-0.96), AUROC 0.81 (0.76-0.85), accuracy 77%, and F1 score 0.85. The multimodal model did not substantially improve performance compared with the computer vision model. Conclusions: The best-performing machine learning classifier for infectious keratitis was a computer vision model trained using the MADURAI dataset. These findings suggest that image-based deep learning could significantly enhance diagnostic capabilities for infectious keratitis and emphasize the importance of using prospective, consecutively-collected, representative data for machine learning model training and evaluation. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceInfectious keratitisMultimodal deep learning

Identifiers

PMID39866343
PMCPMC11758206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.