ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Architectures for Macular Hole Segmentation in OCT Images: A Performance Evaluation of U-Net Variants.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Query-Driven Retinal Layer Segmentation in OCT Using Cross-Attentive Feature Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Automated macular hole staging on optical coherence tomography using an optimized ResNet-18 framework.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Quantifying Explainability in OCT Segmentation of Macular Holes and Cysts: A SHAP-Based Coverage and Factor Contribution Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
This study presents a comprehensive comparison of U-Net variants with different backbone architectures for Macular Hole (MH) segmentation in optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. We evaluated eleven architectures, including U-Net combined with InceptionNetV4, VGG16, VGG19, ResNet152, DenseNet121, EfficientNet-B7, MobileNetV2, Xception, and Transformer. Models were assessed using the Dice coefficient and HD95 metrics on the OIMHS dataset. While HD95 proved unreliable for small regions like MH, often returning 'nan' values, the Dice coefficient provided consistent performance evaluation. InceptionNetV4 + U-Net achieved the highest Dice coefficient (0.9672), demonstrating superior segmentation accuracy. Although considered state-of-the-art, Transformer + U-Net showed poor performance in MH and intraretinal cyst (IRC) segmentation. Analysis of computational resources revealed that MobileNetV2 + U-Net offered the most efficient performance with minimal parameters, while InceptionNetV4 + U-Net balanced accuracy with moderate computational demands. Our findings suggest that CNN-based backbones, particularly InceptionNetV4, are more effective than Transformer architectures for OCT image segmentation, with InceptionNetV4 + U-Net emerging as the most promising model for clinical applications.
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.