ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Comparison of AI-Automated and Manual Subfoveal Choroidal Thickness Measurements in an Elderly Population Using Optical Coherence Tomography.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
- Ophthalmology specialty training for general practitioners in China: current status and the Shenzhen model.BMC primary care · 2026Observational
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
Purpose: To evaluate the agreement and correlation between manual and automated measurements of subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) using enhanced depth imaging spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in an elderly population and to investigate the factors influencing measurement discrepancies. Methods: Based on the Beijing Eye Study, SFCT was measured manually using Heidelberg Eye Explorer software and automatically via a TransUNet-based deep learning model. Agreement between manual and automated SFCT measurements was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: Among 2896 participants, automated and manual measurements of SFCT demonstrated strong correlation (ICC = 0.971; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.969-0.973; Pearson = 0.974, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed similarly high correlation across participants aged ≥60 years (ICC = 0.954, Pearson = 0.974), aged <60 years (ICC = 0.971; Pearson = 0.953), with axial length ≥23 mm (ICC = 0.969; Pearson = 0.974), and axial length <23 mm (ICC = 0.959; Pearson = 0.963). Participants with SFCT <300 µm showed higher consistency (ICC = 0.942; Pearson = 0.944) compared to those with SFCT ≥300 µm (ICC = 0.867; Pearson = 0.868). Significant fixed and proportional biases were observed in all subgroups (P < 0.001), with manual measurements consistently lower than automated values. Conclusions: Despite the presence of systematic biases, automated SFCT measurements showed excellent consistency and strong correlation with manual measurements across a large elderly population. These findings support the potential utility of AI-assisted SFCT measurement in clinical settings. Translational Relevance: This study validates AI-based SFCT measurement in a large elderly cohort, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and bridging research with practice.
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.