ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and validation of a deep learning image quality feedback system for infant fundus photography.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a significant cause of childhood blindness. Many healthcare institutions face a shortage of well-trained ophthalmologists for conducting screenings. Hence, we have developed the Deep Learning Infant Fundus Quality Feedback System (DLIF-QFS) to assess the overall quality of infant retinal photographs and detect common operational errors to support ROP screening and diagnosis. Our DLIF-QFS has been developed and rigorously validated using datasets comprising 13,372 images. In terms of overall quality classification, the DLIF-QFS demonstrated remarkable performance. The area under the curve (AUC) values for discriminating poor quality, adequate quality, and excellent quality images in the external validation dataset were 0.802, 0.691, and 0.926, respectively. For most classification tasks related to identifying issues in adequate and poor quality images, the AUC values consistently exceeded 0.8. In expert diagnostic tests, the DLIF-QFS improved accuracy and enhanced consistency. Its capability to identify the causes of poor image quality, enhance image quality and assist clinicians in improving diagnostic efficiency makes it a valuable tool for advancing ROP diagnosis.
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.