Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39997555›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging2025

Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Architectures for Macular Hole Segmentation in OCT Images: A Performance Evaluation of U-Net Variants.

H M S S Herath, S L P Yasakethu, Nuwan Madusanka, Myunggi Yi, Byeong-Il Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

H M S S HerathDepartment of Industry 4.0 Convergence Bionics Engineering, Pukyoung National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea.
S L P YasakethuFaculty of Technology, Sri Lanka Technological Campus, Padukka 10500, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-6866
Nuwan MadusankaDigital Healthcare Research Center, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7982-1036
Myunggi YiDepartment of Industry 4.0 Convergence Bionics Engineering, Pukyoung National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4864-959X
Byeong-Il LeeDepartment of Industry 4.0 Convergence Bionics Engineering, Pukyoung National University, Busan 48513, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1574-7145

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

convolutional neural networksmacular holeoptical coherence tomographysegmentation

Identifiers

PMID39997555
PMCPMC11856554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.