ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated learning of glaucomatous visual fields from OCT images using a comprehensive, segmentation-free 3D convolutional neural network model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Signal-Strength Filtering on 3D Convolutional Neural Network-Based Visual Field Estimation From Macular OCT.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Multicenter OCT-Based Visual Field Representations via Segmentation-Free 3D CNNs: Forecasting, Longitudinal Variability, and Progression Detection.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Review
- Deep Learning Model for Automated Classification of Macular Neovascularization Subtypes in AMD.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A segmentation-free 3D Convolutional Neural Network (3DCNN) model was adopted to estimate Visual Field (VF) in glaucoma cases using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) images. This study, conducted at a university hospital, included 6335 participants (12,325 eyes). Two models were trained, one on the Glaucoma-Specific Training Group (GTG) and one on the Comprehensive Training Group (CTG) that included various ocular conditions without manual preselection. The CTG showed significantly better performance than the GTG in estimating VF thresholds and Mean Deviation (MD) for both Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 and HFA10-2 test patterns (p < 0.001). Strong correlations were observed between the estimated and actual VF thresholds for HFA24-2 (Pearson's r: 0.878) and HFA10-2 (r: 0.903), as well as MD for HFA24-2 (r: 0.911) and HFA10-2 (r: 0.944) in the CTG. The CTG demonstrated lower estimation errors than the GTG and smaller errors in severe cases. The model's performance remained relatively stable even in advanced glaucoma cases. The model's ability to learn from a comprehensive dataset without human annotation highlights its potential for large-scale training in the future, potentially improving glaucoma assessment and monitoring in clinical practice. Further validation in external datasets and exploration in different clinical settings are warranted.
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.