ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
SmartPLR: a digital solution for AI-powered smartphone pupillometry.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo develop a smartphone-based pupillometry using deep learning and evaluate its accuracy compared to a commercial pupillometer, the NPi-300.
methods336 pupillary light reflex (PLR) exams from 158 volunteers were analyzed using deep learning models (UNet, UNet++, DeepLabV3, DeepLabV3+, and Mask R-CNN) with different backbones (ResNet50, Swin Transformer, and ConvNeXt V2). Once the best combination was identified, image data was filtered according to the degree of eyelid opening and image blurriness. The maximum-minimum pupil size difference, constriction velocity (CV), and percentage change in pupil size (CP) were compared between our application and the NPi-300 gold standard. The kernel density estimation and Bhattacharyya Distance were used to develop a scoring method to classify pupil reactivity: SmartPLR.
resultsMask R-CNN (ConvNeXt V2 backbone), which showed a mean intersection over union of 0.9177, segmentation mean average precision (mAP) of 0.8670, and bounding box mAP of 0.8663, was selected for our application. The Pearson correlation values comparing our application to the NPi-300 for pupil size difference, CV, and CP were 0.77, 0.77, and 0.74, respectively. The SmartPLR formula was defined as [Formula: see text], and sluggish pupils were defined as [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], and urgent pupils were defined as [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text].
conclusionsDespite various smartphone applications developed to evaluate the PLR, they rely on additional add-ons or infrared light source. This prevents such applications from being completely commercialized. Our novel smartphone application, built on deep learning and not requiring infrared or additional devices, demonstrated high accuracy compared to the NPi-300.
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.