ArticleOphthalmology science
Longitudinal Comparison of Geographic Atrophy Enlargement Using Manual, Semiautomated, and Deep Learning Approaches.
Article in Ophthalmology science. 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.
- Comparison of Clarus, Optos, and Heidelberg Systems for Geographic Atrophy Area Measurements.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Development of a conceptual, HOV-inspired spatial weighting model for quantifying geographic atrophy severity.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Geographic Atrophy on Fundus Autofluorescence and Color Fundus Photographs: Association with Deep Visual Sensitivity Losses.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Automated Nonperfusion Quantification in Diabetic Retinopathy on Ultra-Widefield Swept-Source OCT Angiography.Ophthalmology science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare a fully automated artificial intelligence (AI) model, a semiautomated method, and manual planimetry in the longitudinal assessment of geographic atrophy (GA) using fundus autofluorescence images. Design: A retrospective analysis of 3 GA assessment methods: AI, Heidelberg Eye Explorer semiautomated software (RegionFinder), and manual planimetry. Subjects and Controls: One hundred eight patients (185 eyes) with GA from a phase IIb clinical trial by GlaxoSmithKline, which evaluated an experimental drug that did not reduce GA enlargement compared with the placebo. Methods: Fundus autofluorescence images of 185 eyes were annotated using manual planimetry, semiautomated RegionFinder, and a fully automated AI model trained and validated on manual planimetry annotations at screening, year 1, and year 2. Artificial intelligence masks were compared with human-guided methods, and regression errors were assessed by stacking masks from consecutive visits. Agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and comparisons of GA growth rates. Artificial intelligence performance was evaluated based on its need for human edits and frequency of regression errors. Main Outcome Measures: Agreement between methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots, DSC, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The mean GA growth rate (mm Results: At screening, the mean GA area was 7.22 mm Conclusions: Artificial intelligence accurately measures GA in approximately 85% of cases, requiring human intervention in only 15%, indicating potential to streamline GA measurement in clinical trials while maintaining human oversight. Financial Disclosures: The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.