ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting visual acuity using optical coherence tomography in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Macular degeneration collection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
This study aimed to assess the feasibility of an artificial intelligence(AI) model to predict visual acuity(VA) using optical coherence tomography(OCT) in treatment-naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This retrospective study enrolled 240 patients(240 eyes) with pseudophakic neovascular AMD who received antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Each patient underwent 10 visits where they underwent best-corrected visual acuity(BCVA) testing and horizontal OCT scans, yielding 2,400 images. The images were cropped, resized to 224 × 224 pixels, and partitioned at the patient level to avoid data leakage. A pretrained VGG16 CNN was modified for five-class VA classification (< 0.1, 0.1-0.3, 0.3-0.5, 0.5-0.8, ≥ 0.8). The performance was assessed by five-fold cross-validation using the macro-averaged AUC, accuracy, Top-2 accuracy, and binary accuracy (threshold VA = 0.5). The average performance showed a macro-averaged AUC of 0.772, accuracy of 50.3%, Top-2 accuracy of 71.0%, and binary accuracy of 79.6%. For high-confidence predictions (29.2% of the samples), the accuracy improved to 74.1%, with a binary accuracy of 94.2%. ROC analyses demonstrated AUCs of 0.73-0.83 across VA categories, with the strongest discrimination for VA < 0.1 (AUC 0.83). The confusion matrix showed that the VA 0.5-0.8 and ≥ 0.8 categories achieved relatively higher accuracies; however, misclassifications mainly occurred between these adjacent ranges, with frequent bidirectional errors observed. Our pretrained VGG16 showed moderate ability at predicting VA from OCT images in patients with neovascular AMD. While the overall classification was limited, high binary accuracy highlights the potential clinical value of distinguishing good from poor vision.
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.