ArticleOphthalmology science
Automated Cone Photoreceptor Detection in Adaptive Optics Flood Illumination Ophthalmoscopy.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive Optics Image Analysis Using Generative AI (GPT-4) Scripting: Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Identification of a Duplication in the RP17 Locus in an Individual With Pathogenic CEP290 Variants: Implications for RP17 Variant Classification.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Validation of a Rule-Based Automated Method for RPE Cell Detection Using Adaptive Optics Transscleral Flood Illumination.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- In-Vivo Characterization of Healthy Retinal Pigment Epithelium and Photoreceptor Cells from AO-(T)FI Imaging.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Neural network assisted annotation and analysis tool to study in-vivo foveolar cone photoreceptor topography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Acute retinal pigment epitheliitis using adaptive optics imaging: a case report.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Automated Cone Photoreceptor Detection in Adaptive Optics Flood Illumination Ophthalmoscopy.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.