ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Comparative Study Between Clinical Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) Analysis and Artificial Intelligence-Based Quantitative Evaluation in the Diagnosis of Diabetic Macular Edema.
Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have transformed ophthalmic diagnostics, particularly for retinal diseases. In this prospective, non-randomized study, we evaluated the performance of an AI-based software system against conventional clinical assessment-both quantitative and qualitative-of optical coherence tomography (OCT) images for diagnosing diabetic macular edema (DME). A total of 700 OCT exams were analyzed across 26 features, including demographic data (age, sex), eye laterality, visual acuity, and 21 quantitative OCT parameters (Macula Map A X-Y). We tested two classification scenarios: binary (DME presence vs. absence) and multiclass (six distinct DME phenotypes). To streamline feature selection, we applied paraconsistent feature engineering (PFE), isolating the most diagnostically relevant variables. We then compared the diagnostic accuracies of logistic regression, support vector machines (SVM), K-nearest neighbors (KNN), and decision tree models. In the binary classification using all features, SVM and KNN achieved 92% accuracy, while logistic regression reached 91%. When restricted to the four PFE-selected features, accuracy modestly declined to 84% for both logistic regression and SVM. These findings underscore the potential of AI-and particularly PFE-as an efficient, accurate aid for DME screening and 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.