ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2025
Diagnostic report generation for macular diseases by natural language processing algorithms.
Article in The British journal of 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.
- Automated Report Generation in Ophthalmology: Integrating Artificial Intelligence, Multimodal Imaging, and Clinical Data.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo investigate rule-based and deep learning (DL)-based methods for the automatically generating natural language diagnostic reports for macular diseases.
methodsThis diagnostic study collected the ophthalmic images of 2261 eyes from 1303 patients. Colour fundus photographs and optical coherence tomography images were obtained. Eyes without retinal diseases as well as eyes diagnosed with four macular diseases were included. For each eye, a diagnostic report was written with a format consisting of lesion descriptions, diagnoses and recommendations. Subsequently, a rule-based natural language processing (NLP) and a DL-based NLP system were developed to automatically generate a diagnostic report. To assess the effectiveness of these models, two junior ophthalmologists wrote diagnostic reports for the collected images independently. A questionnaire was designed and judged by two retina specialists to grade each report's readability, correctness of diagnosis, lesion description and recommendations.
resultsThe rule-based NLP reports achieved higher grades over junior ophthalmologists in correctness of diagnosis (9.13±1.52 vs 9.03±1.42 points) and recommendations (8.55±2.74 vs 8.50±2.53 points). Furthermore, the DL-based NLP reports got slightly lower grades to those of junior ophthalmologists in lesion description (8.82±1.84 vs 9.12±1.20 points, p<0.05), correctness of diagnosis (8.72±2.36 vs 9.08±1.55 points, p<0.05) and recommendations (8.81±2.52 vs 9.15±1.65 points, p<0.05). For readability, the DL-based reports performed better than junior ophthalmologists, with scores of 9.98±0.17 vs 9.94±0.25 points (p=0.094).
conclusionsThe multimodal AI system, coupled with the NLP algorithm, has demonstrated competence in generating reports for four macular diseases compared with junior ophthalmologists.
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.