ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2025
Comparative Analysis of Automated vs. Expert-Designed Machine Learning Models in Age-Related Macular Degeneration Detection and Classification.
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of Deep Learning in Classifying Age-Related Macular Degeneration From Images: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Choriocapillaris Flow and Retinal Vascular Fractal Dimension in Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of expert-designed machine learning models and code-free automated machine learning (AutoML) models in classifying optical coherence tomography (OCT) images for detecting age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and distinguishing between its dry and wet forms. Materials and Methods: Custom models were developed by an artificial intelligence expert using the EfficientNet V2 architecture, while AutoML models were created by an ophthalmologist utilizing LobeAI with transfer learning via ResNet-50 V2. Both models were designed to differentiate normal OCT images from AMD and to also distinguish between dry and wet AMD. The models were trained and tested using an 80:20 split, with each diagnostic group containing 500 OCT images. Performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and F1 scores, were calculated and compared. Results: The expert-designed model achieved an overall accuracy of 99.67% for classifying all images, with F1 scores of 0.99 or higher across all binary class comparisons. In contrast, the AutoML model achieved an overall accuracy of 89.00%, with F1 scores ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 in binary comparisons. Notably lower recall was observed for dry AMD vs. normal (0.85) in the AutoML model, indicating challenges in correctly identifying dry AMD. Conclusion: While the AutoML models demonstrated acceptable performance in identifying and classifying AMD cases, the expert-designed models significantly outperformed them. The use of advanced neural network architectures and rigorous optimization in the expert-developed models underscores the continued necessity of expert involvement in the development of high-precision diagnostic tools for medical image classification.
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.