ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Deep learning model for detecting cystoid fluid collections on optical coherence tomography in X-linked retinoschisis patients.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 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.
- Randomised Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Acetazolamide for the Treatment of Cystoid Fluid Collections in X-Linked Retinoschisis: The AXIS Trial.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyTrial
- Review
- Deep learning model for detecting cystoid fluid collections on optical coherence tomography in X-linked retinoschisis patients.Acta ophthalmologica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo validate a deep learning (DL) framework for detecting and quantifying cystoid fluid collections (CFC) on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) in X-linked retinoschisis (XLRS) patients.
methodsA no-new-U-Net model was trained using 112 OCT volumes from the RETOUCH challenge (70 for training and 42 for internal testing). External validation involved 37 SD-OCT scans from 20 XLRS patients, including 20 randomly sampled B-scans and 17 manually selected central B-scans. Three graders manually delineated the CFC on these B-scans in this external test set. The model's efficacy was evaluated using Dice and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores, assessed exclusively on the test set comprising B-scans from XLRS patients.
resultsFor the randomly sampled B-scans, the model achieved a mean Dice score of 0.886 (±0.010), compared to 0.912 (±0.014) for the observers. For the manually selected central B-scans, the Dice scores were 0.936 (±0.012) for the model and 0.946 (±0.012) for the graders. ICC scores between the model and reference were 0.945 (±0.014) for the randomly selected and 0.964 (±0.011) for the manually selected B-scans. Among the graders, ICC scores were 0.979 (±0.008) and 0.981 (±0.011), respectively.
conclusionsOur validated DL model accurately segments and quantifies CFC on SD-OCT in XLRS, paving the way for reliable monitoring of structural changes. However, systematic overestimation by the DL model was observed, highlighting a key limitation for future refinement.
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.