Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41256877›Full record

ArticleArXiv2025

Glaucoma Detection and Structured OCT Report Generation via a Fine-tuned Multimodal Large Language Model.

Jalil Jalili, Yashraj Gavhane, Evan Walker, Anna Heinke, Christopher Bowd, Akram Belghith, Massimo A Fazio, Christopher A Girkin, C Gustavo De Moraes, Jeffrey M Liebmann and 4 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Jalil JaliliDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Yashraj GavhaneDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Evan WalkerDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Anna HeinkeDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Christopher BowdDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Akram BelghithDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Massimo A FazioDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Christopher A GirkinDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
C Gustavo De MoraesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harkness Eye Institute, Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, New York, NY, United States.
Jeffrey M LiebmannDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harkness Eye Institute, Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, New York, NY, United States.
Sally L BaxterDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Robert N WeinrebDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Linda M ZangwillDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Mark ChristopherDivision of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

Bridge2AI:Salutogenesis Data Generation ProjectOT2OD032644 · OD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AYYAGARI, RADHA, BAHMANI, AMIR · 2022 to 2025
$32.7M
Vision BiostatisticsP30EY022589 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Dirk-Uwe G Bartsch · 2012 to 2026
$10.3M
Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma:Structural AssessmentR01EY011008 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ZANGWILL, LINDA M · 1995 to 2015
$8.7M
xADAGES III: Contribution of genotype to glaucoma phenotype in African AmericansR01EY023704 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ROTTER, JEROME I, WEINREB, ROBERT N · 2013 to 2017
$6.3M
Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS): High Myopia and Advanced DiseaseR01EY027510 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LINDA M ZANGWILL · 2017 to 2026
$5.3M
Diagnosis and Monitoring of Glaucoma with Optical Coherence Tomography AngiographyR01EY029058 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI WEINREB, ROBERT N · 2018 to 2024
$4.2M
Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS): Functional ImpairmentR01EY021818 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI MEDEIROS, FELIPE · 2011 to 2015
$3.4M
African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation (ADAGES) II: Glaucoma ProgressionR01EY019869 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ZANGWILL, LINDA M · 2010 to 2014
$2.8M
Multimodal Artificial Intelligence to Predict Glaucomatous Progression and Surgical InterventionR01EY034146 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BAXTER, SALLY LIU, CHRISTOPHER, MARK · 2022 to 2025
$1.8M
Boost: A pragmatic inpatient rehabilitation strategy for improving musculoskeletal arm recovery after strokeR44HD106850 · NICHD · FLINT REHABILITATION DEVICES · PI ZONDERVAN, DANIEL · 2021 to 2022
$1.7M
Predicting and Detecting Glaucomatous Progression Using Pattern RecognitionR01EY022039 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BOWD, CHRISTOPHER · 2012 to 2015
$1.5M
Translational Vision Research Training at UCSDT32EY026590 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ZANGWILL, LINDA M · 2016 to 2025
$854k
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY022589NEI NIH HHS R00 EY030942NEI NIH HHS R01 EY011008NEI NIH HHS R01 EY019869NEI NIH HHS R01 EY021818NEI NIH HHS R01 EY022039NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023704NEI NIH HHS R01 EY027510NEI NIH HHS R01 EY029058NEI NIH HHS R01 EY034146NEI NIH HHS R21 EY027945NEI NIH HHS T32 EY026590NEI NIH HHS T35 EY033704NICHD NIH HHS R44 HD106850NIH HHS OT2 OD032644
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To develop an explainable multimodal large language model (MM-LLM) that (1) screens optic nerve head (ONH) OCT circle scans for quality and (2) generates structured clinical reports that include glaucoma diagnosis and sector-wise retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thinning assessments. Design: Retrospective cohort study using longitudinal data from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) and the African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study (ADAGES). Participants: 43,849 Spectralis ONH OCT circle scans from 1,310 subjects, including 1,331 glaucomatous and 867 healthy eyes. Methods: A MM-LLM (Llama 3.2 Vision-Instruct model) was fine-tuned to generate clinical descriptions of OCT imaging data. Training data included paired OCT images and automatically generated, structured clinical reports that described global and sectoral RNFL thinning. Poor-quality scans were labeled as unusable and paired with a fixed refusal statement. The model was evaluated on a held-out test set for three tasks: quality assessment, glaucoma detection, and RNFL thinning classification across seven anatomical sectors. Evaluation metrics included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-score. Model description quality was also evaluated using standard text evaluation metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, BERTScore). Results: The model achieved 0.90 accuracy and 0.98 specificity for quality triage. For glaucoma detection, accuracy was 0.86 (sensitivity 0.91, specificity 0.73, F1-score 0.91). RNFL thinning prediction accuracy ranged from 0.83 to 0.94, with highest performance in global and temporal sectors. Text generation scores (mean ± SD) showed strong alignment with reference reports (BLEU: 0.82 ± 0.19; ROUGE-1: 0.94 ± 0.08; ROUGE-2: 0.87 ± 0.17; ROUGE-L: 0.92 ± 0.11; BERTScore-F1: 0.99 ± 0.02). Stratified analysis revealed better RNFL thinning detection in moderate-to-advanced glaucoma cases, especially in temporal sectors, while performance in nasal regions was better for mild cases. Conclusions: The fine-tuned MM-LLM generated accurate clinical descriptions based on OCT imaging. The model achieved high accuracy in identifying image quality issues and detecting glaucoma. The model also provided sectoral descriptions of RNFL thinning to help support clinical OCT evaluation. This approach shows potential as a scalable tool for clinical decision support, but further validation across additional datasets is needed.

Indexed as

AIclinical report generationglaucoma detectionLlama 3.2multimodal large language modeloptical coherence tomographyquality triageretinal nerve fiber layer

Identifiers

PMID41256877
PMCPMC12622204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.