Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40114708›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Automated Cone Photoreceptor Detection in Adaptive Optics Flood Illumination Ophthalmoscopy.

Sander Wooning, Pam A T Heutinck, Kubra Liman, Sem Hennekam, Manon van Haute, Filip van den Broeck, Bart Leroy, Danuta M Sampson, Danial Roshandel, Fred K Chen and 10 more

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

20 authors.

Sander WooningBiomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Pam A T HeutinckDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Kubra LimanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sem HennekamBiomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Manon van HauteDepartment of Ophthalmology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Filip van den BroeckDepartment of Ophthalmology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Bart LeroyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Danuta M SampsonCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Danial RoshandelCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Fred K ChenCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Daniel M PeltLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
L Ingeborgh van den BornThe Rotterdam Ophthalmic Institute, The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Virginie J M VerhoevenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Caroline C W KlaverDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Alberta A H J ThiadensDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marine DurandImagine Eyes, Orsay, France.
Nicolas ChateauImagine Eyes, Orsay, France.
Theo van WalsumBiomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Danilo Andrade De JesusBiomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Luisa Sanchez BreaBiomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To develop and validate a deep learning-based model for detecting cone photoreceptor cells in adaptive optics flood illumination ophthalmoscopy (AO-FIO). Design: Healthy volunteer study. Participants: A total of 36 healthy participants were included. Methods: The imaging protocol consisted of 21 AO-FIO images per eye acquired with the rtx1 adaptive optics retinal camera (Imagine Eyes), 4° × 4° each with 2° overlap, imaging a retinal patch 4° nasal (N) to 12° temporal (T) and -5° inferior to 5° superior relative to the fovea. Each image was divided into patches of 128 × 128 pixels, with a 20-pixel overlap. A training set (625 patches) from 18 subjects (32 ± 12 years, 6 males and 12 females) was annotated by a single center, whereas the test set (54 patches) from 18 subjects (40 ± 16 years, 11 males and 7 females) was annotated by graders from 3 different institutions. The deep learning model, based on the U-Net architecture, underwent a parameter search using the tree-structured Parzen estimator. Main Outcome Measures: The F1 score was used to determine both intragrader and intergrader agreements and to evaluate the model's performance compared with the automated detection by the manufacturer's software (AOdetect Mosaic). Results: The average intragrader agreement was 0.85 ± 0.06 between 2°N and 2°T, followed by 0.83 ± 0.09 between 3 and 6°T, and 0.80 ± 0.10 between 7 and 10°T. The average intergrader agreement for the 3 centers was 0.84 ± 0.05, 0.79 ± 0.05, and 0.76 ± 0.06 at 2°N-2°T, 3-6°T, and 7-10°T, respectively. The best combination of hyperparameters based on the tree-structured Parzen estimator algorithm achieved an F1 score of 0.89 ± 0.04. The average agreement between the model and the graders was 0.87 ± 0.04, 0.85 ± 0.03, and 0.81 ± 0.03 at 2°N-2°T, 3°-6°T, and 7°-10°T, respectively. These values were higher than those between AOdetect's auto detection without manual correction and the graders (0.84 ± 0.05, 0.79 ± 0.03, and 0.68 ± 0.04, respectively). A reduction in cone density was noted at greater eccentricities, in line with previous research findings, and the model indicated variations in estimating cell density for individuals aged 18 to 30 compared with those aged ≥50 years. Conclusions: The performance of the developed deep learning-based model, AO-FIO ConeDetect, was comparable to that of graders from 3 medical centers. It outperformed the manufacturers' software auto-detection, particularly at higher eccentricities (7°-10°T). Hence, the model could reduce the need for manual correction and enable faster cone mosaic analyses. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Adaptive optics flood illumination ophthalmoscopyAutomated detectionCone mosaic analysisCone photoreceptor cellsRetinal imaging

Identifiers

PMID40114708
PMCPMC11925573

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.