ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Development and evaluation of a deep learning system for screening real-world multiple abnormal findings based on ultra-widefield fundus images.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and evaluate a deep learning system for screening multiple abnormal findings including hemorrhages, drusen, hard exudates, cotton wool spots and retinal breaks using ultra-widefield fundus images. Methods: The system consisted of three modules: (I) quality assessment module, (II) artifact removal module and (III) lesion recognition module. In Module III, a heatmap was generated to highlight the lesion area. A total of 4,521 UWF images were used for the training and internal validation of the DL system. The system was evaluated in two external validation datasets consisting of 344 images and 894 images from two other hospitals. The performance of the system in these two datasets was compared with or without Module II. Results: In both external validation datasets, the deep learning system made better performance when recognizing lesions on processed images after Module II than on original images without Module II. Module II-enhanced preprocessing improved Module III's five-lesion recognition performance by an average of 6.73% and 14.4% areas under the curves, 14.47% and 19.62% accuracy in the two external validations. Conclusion: Our system showed reliable performance for detecting MAF in real-world UWF images. For deep learning systems to recognize real-world images, the artifact removal module was indeed helpful.
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.