ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Comparative analysis of deep learning architectures for thyroid eye disease detection using facial photographs.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What has changed in thyroid eye disease in the last five years (2020-2025).European thyroid journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare two artificial intelligence (AI) models, residual neural networks ResNet-50 and ResNet-101, for screening thyroid eye disease (TED) using frontal face photographs, and to test these models under clinical conditions.
methodsA total of 1601 face photographs were obtained. These photographs were preprocessed by cropping to a region centered around the eyes. For the deep learning process, photographs from 643 TED patients and 643 healthy individuals were used for training the ResNet models. Additionally, 81 photographs of TED patients and 74 of normal subjects were used as the validation dataset. Finally, 80 TED cases and 80 healthy subjects comprised the test dataset. For application tests under clinical conditions, data from 25 TED patients and 25 healthy individuals were utilized to evaluate the non-inferiority of the AI models, with general ophthalmologists and fellowships as the control group.
resultsIn the test set verification of the ResNet-50 AI model, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.94, 0.88, 0.64, and 0.92, respectively. For the ResNet-101 AI model, these metrics were 0.93, 0.84, 0.76, and 0.92, respectively. In the application tests under clinical conditions, to evaluate the non-inferiority of the ResNet-50 AI model, the AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.82, 0.82, 0.88, and 0.76, respectively. For the ResNet-101 AI model, these metrics were 0.91, 0.84, 0.92, and 0.76, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the two models for any of the metrics (all p-values > 0.05).
conclusionsFace image-based TED screening using ResNet-50 and ResNet-101 AI models shows acceptable accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for distinguishing TED from healthy subjects.
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.