ArticleScientific reports2025
Artificial intelligence derived grading of mustard gas induced corneal injury and opacity.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool in ophthalmology for disease diagnosis and prognosis. However, use of AI for assessing corneal damage due to chemical injury in live rabbits remains lacking. This study aimed to develop an AI-derived clinical classification model for an objective grading of corneal injury and opacity levels in live rabbits following ocular exposure of sulfur mustard (SM). An automated method to grade corneal injury minimizes diagnostic errors and enhances translational application of preclinical research in better human eyecare. SM induced corneal injury and opacity from 401 in-house rabbit corneal images captured with a clinical stereomicroscope were used. Three independent subject matter specialists classified corneal images into four health grades: healthy, mild, moderate, and severe. Mask-RCNN was employed for precise corneal segmentation and extraction, followed by classification using baseline convolutional neural network and transfer learning algorithms, including VGG16, ResNet101, DenseNet121, InceptionV3, and ResNet50. The ResNet50-based model demonstrated the best performance, achieving 87% training accuracy, and 85% and 83% prediction accuracies on two independent test sets. This deep learning framework, combining Mask-RCNN with ResNet50 allows reliable and uniform grading of SM-induced corneal injury and opacity levels in affected eyes.
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.