Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668050›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025

Three-Dimensional Quantification of Macular OCT Alterations Improves the Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence Models.

Lukas Heine, Anna Vahldiek, Benja Vahldiek, Fabian Hörst, Constantin Seibold, Mael Lever, Laurenz Pauleikhoff, Nikolaos Bechrakis, Daniel Pauleikhoff, Jens Kleesiek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Choroidal vascularity across aging and the spectrum of age-related macular degeneration: an AI-based OCT study.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Automated measurement of macular neovascularization lesion size in nAMD using AI segmentation.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lukas HeineInstitute for AI in Medicine, University Medicine Essen, Essen, North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany.
Anna VahldiekInstitute for AI in Medicine, University Medicine Essen, Essen, North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany.
Benja VahldiekInstitute for AI in Medicine, University Medicine Essen, Essen, North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany.
Fabian HörstInstitute for AI in Medicine, University Medicine Essen, Essen, North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany.
Constantin SeiboldInstitute for AI in Medicine, University Medicine Essen, Essen, North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany.
Mael LeverDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Essen (AöR), Essen, Germany.
Laurenz PauleikhoffDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Nikolaos BechrakisDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Essen (AöR), Essen, Germany.
Daniel PauleikhoffAMD-Netz, MediRet, Münster, Germany.
Jens KleesiekInstitute for AI in Medicine, University Medicine Essen, Essen, North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art semantic segmentation methods on OCT data for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We measured variability between annotators to quantify differences in ground truth arising from personal bias. Methods: From 94 patients suffering from exudative neovascular AMD (nAMD), 24 volume scans (49 slices each) were selected. Trained members of a reading center for AMD created pixel-wise masks for 12 retinal layers and two pathological labels (fluid, hyperreflective material) to benchmark two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) segmentation models on clinical data. Models were evaluated using fivefold cross-validation, and the best model was used to quantify errors between ground truth and predictions. Results: The nnU-Net (3D) achieves the best segmentation performance (mean Dice similarity coefficient [DSC] of 0.907), leaving a theoretical gap of 0.036 DSC to the mean interrater agreement, which is the upper bound of model performances. Comparing the volumes calculated for each structure using the model masks with the ground truth produced an average error of 0.065 mm3. Conclusions: Models like nnU-Net can produce high-quality 3D masks, challenging the conventional reliance on 2D slices for optimal performance. Both DSC and low average errors indicate that such a model is fit for the large-scale analysis of cohorts. Translational Relevance: The presented approach can streamline clinical workflows by reducing the time and effort required for manual annotations, ultimately supporting more efficient and accurate monitoring of AMD progression and treatment response. We provide open-source access to the model weights, annotation instructions and sample data.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceImaging, Three-DimensionalMacula LuteaMacular DegenerationTomography, Optical CoherenceWet Macular DegenerationAgedFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID40668050
PMCPMC12279069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.