Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41247284›Full record

ArticleCornea2026

Association of Deep Learning Imaging Algorithm Measures of Microbial Keratitis With Vision Outcomes.

Emily L Vogt, Leslie M Niziol, Ziyun Yang, Yiqing Wang, Mercy Pawar, Pauline Dmitriev, Angela S Gupta, Stephen T Armenti, Christopher T Hood, Roni M Shtein and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cornea, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Artificial intelligence in microbial keratitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Emily L VogtDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Leslie M NiziolDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ziyun YangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Yiqing WangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Mercy PawarDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Pauline DmitrievDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Angela S GuptaDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Stephen T ArmentiDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Penn Medicine and Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Christopher T HoodDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Roni M ShteinDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Mason M KipleyDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Madeleine C LeeDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
S R SumithraDepartment of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Aravind Eye Care Systems, Madurai, India.
Monikha ThulukanamDepartment of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Aravind Eye Care Systems, Madurai, India.
Prabhleen KocharDepartment of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Aravind Eye Care Systems, Madurai, India.
Suvitha SelvarajDepartment of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Aravind Eye Care Systems, Madurai, India.
Travis K ReddDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR.
N Venkatesh PrajnaDepartment of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Aravind Eye Care Systems, Madurai, India.
Sina FarsiuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Maria A WoodwardDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0001-7060-9004

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
VISION RESEARCHP30EY005722 · NEI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Goldis Malek · 1985 to 2026
$19.3M
VIVARIUM MODULEP30EY007003 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI David Antonetti · 1987 to 2026
$17.6M
Quantifying Microbial Keratitis to Predict Outcomes: An Imaging and Epidemiologic ApproachR01EY031033 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WOODWARD, MARIA ANNEKE · 2020 to 2023
$1.8M
Michigan Institute for Clinical and Translational Research UL1TR002240NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240NEI NIH HHS P30 EY005722NEI NIH HHS P30EY005722NEI NIH HHS P30 EY007003NEI NIH HHS P30EY007003NEI NIH HHS R01 EY031033NEI NIH HHS R01EY031033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare associations between 90-day vision and microbial keratitis-related corneal changes when predicted by an artificial intelligence image-based algorithm or when measured by a clinician.

methodsThis prospective cohort study followed patients with microbial keratitis in the United States and India for up to 90 days. Participants' clinical history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), slitlamp imaging, and anterior exam findings were collected. A novel, artificial intelligence imaging segmentation algorithm was developed to quantify relevant corneal morphologic features, including presenting stromal infiltrate (SI) area and hypopyon presence using corneal photography. Multivariable linear regression models assessed associations of presenting features, including algorithm-predicted measurements, with 90-day logMAR BCVA. Results are reported with model estimates (β) and 95% confidence intervals.

resultsThe study included 479 participants (N = 138 United States, N = 341 India). In the United States, larger algorithm-predicted SI area [β = 0.02 per 1 mm 2 area increase for bacterial ulcers ( P = 0.002); β = 0.09 per 1 mm 2 increase for fungal ulcers ( P < 0.05); and β = 0.25 per 1 mm 2 increase for viral ulcers ( P = 0.0095)] was associated with worse 90-day vision. In India, larger algorithm-predicted SI area (β = 0.05 per 1 mm 2 area increase for fungal ulcers, P < 0.001) and algorithm-predicted hypopyon (β = 0.22, 95%, confidence interval 0.02-0.41; P = 0.0290) were associated with worse 90-day vision. Algorithm-based measurements of SI area and hypopyon presence showed a similar association with 90-day logMAR BCVA, in magnitude and significance, to those using clinicians' measurements.

conclusionsWorse vision outcomes were associated with larger SI area and hypopyon presence when predicted by the imaging segmentation algorithm or measured by clinicians in both cohorts.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCorneal UlcerDeep LearningEye Infections, BacterialEye Infections, FungalKeratitisVisual AcuityAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective Studiesartificial intelligencedeep learningmicrobial keratitisslit lamp photographyvision outcomes

Identifiers

PMID41247284
PMCPMC13051392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.