ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Comparison of effectiveness of geographic atrophy automatic segmentation with different imaging methods.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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.
- Exploratory study on a novel automatic quantification software by artificial intelligence for geographic atrophy associated to age-related macular degeneration.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare geographic atrophy (GA) size measured with fundus autofluorescence (FAF), near-infrared (N-IR) imaging, retromode (RM) imaging and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) imaging and to compare accuracy of artificial intelligence(AI)-based automatic segmentation of GA with each method.
methodsAvailable good quality FAF, N-IR- RM and OCTA images acquired on the same date for each patient diagnosed with GA from 2022 to 2024 were retrospectively collected. Seventy(70)% of the images were used to train a Trainable Weka Segmenter (v 3.3.2) based on manual segmentation of GA and spurious areas performed by 2 different blinded expert graders for each of the 4 imaging modalities. For the remaining 30%(testing set), automatic measurement and manual measurement were compared to determine accuracy of the segmentation.
resultsA total of 157 eyes were included. Mean ground truth GA area (graders' manual contouring), mean automatic area and mean spurious area of testing set were significantly different with the 4 techniques(respectively p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p = 0.002). Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) between manual and automatic measurements was 0.82 (0.78-0.84) for FAF model, 0.81 (0.78-0.82) for N-IR model, 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for RM model and 0.77 (0.73-0.81) for OCTA model.
conclusionWe report very good performance of automatic segmentation performed on FAF, N-IR and OCTA. A slight overestimation of GA area with automatic measurements would be considered when assessing GA area on FAF and N-IR imaging. RM imaging should not be considered as a valid method for automatic GA area assessment due to superiority of other available enface imaging techniques.
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.