ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2026
AI-based prediction of best-corrected visual acuity in patients with multiple retinal diseases using multimodal medical imaging.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis study evaluated the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in predicting best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) for patients with multiple retinal diseases, using multimodal medical imaging including macular optical coherence tomography (OCT), optic disc OCT and fundus images. The goal was to enhance clinical BCVA evaluation efficiency and precision.
methodsA retrospective study used data from 2545 patients (4028 eyes) for training, 896 (1006 eyes) for testing and 196 (200 eyes) for internal validation, with an external prospective dataset of 741 patients (1381 eyes). Single-modality analyses employed different backbone networks and feature fusion methods, while multimodal fusion combined modalities using average aggregation, concatenation/reduction and maximum feature selection. Predictive accuracy was measured by mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE) and R² score.
resultsMacular OCT achieved better single-modality prediction than optic disc OCT, with MAE of 3.851 vs 4.977 and RMSE of 7.844 vs 10.026. Fundus images showed an MAE of 3.795 and RMSE of 7.954. Multimodal fusion significantly improved accuracy, with the best results using average aggregation, achieving an MAE of 2.865, RMSE of 6.229 and R² of 0.935. External validation yielded an MAE of 8.38 and RMSE of 10.62.
conclusionMultimodal fusion provided the most accurate BCVA predictions, demonstrating AI's potential to improve clinical evaluation. However, challenges remain regarding disease diversity and applicability in resource-limited settings.
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.