ArticleOphthalmology science
Automated Segmentation of Subretinal Fluid from OCT: A Vision Transformer Approach with Cross-Validation.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Query-Driven Retinal Layer Segmentation in OCT Using Cross-Attentive Feature Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical application of automated optical coherence tomography angiography for retinal fluid segmentation: a study of real-world data.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Vitreoretinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of Current Applications and Future Directions.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We present an algorithm to segment subretinal fluid (SRF) on individual B-scan slices in patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Particular attention is paid to robustness, with a fivefold cross-validation approach and a hold-out test set. Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. Participants: A total of 3819 B-scan slices across 98 time points from 45 patients were used in this study. Methods: Subretinal fluid was segmented on all scans. A base SegFormer model, pretrained on 4 massive data sets, was further trained on raw B-scans from the retinal OCT fluid challenge data set of 4532 slices: an open data set of intraretinal fluid, SRF, and pigment epithelium detachment. When adequate performance was reached, transfer learning was used to train the model on our in-house data set, to segment SRF by generating a pixel-wise mask of presence/absence of SRF. A fivefold cross-validation approach was used, with an additional hold-out test set. All folds were first trained and cross-validated and then additionally tested on the hold-out set. Mean (averaged across images) and total (summed across all pixels, irrespective of image) Dice coefficients were calculated for each fold. Main Outcome Measures: Subretinal fluid volume after surgical intervention for RRD. Results: The average total Dice coefficient across the validation folds was 0.92, the average mean Dice coefficient was 0.82, and the median Dice was 0.92. For the test set, the average total Dice coefficient was 0.94, the average mean Dice coefficient was 0.82, and the median Dice was 0.92. The model showed strong interfold consistency on the hold-out set, with a standard deviation of only 0.03. Conclusions: The SegFormer model for SRF segmentation demonstrates a strong ability to segment SRF. This result holds up to cross-validation and hold-out testing, across all folds. The model is available open-source online. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.