ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Comparing Interactive Machine Learning and Unassisted Segmentation of Geographic Atrophy From Fundus Autofluorescence.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the benefit of using OPTIMEyes, an Interactive Machine Learning (IML) platform for annotation of ophthalmology images, along three axes: efficiency, uniformity, and noninferiority when compared to unassisted segmentation of geographic atrophy (GA) from fundus autofluorescence. Methods: We enrolled 10 annotators and collected 110 fundus autofluorescence images from patients with GA. We obtained ground truth GA segmentations from an expert retinal specialist and used 100 images to train the OPTIMEyes Artificial Intelligence (AI) segmentation model and 10 images to compare unassisted segmentation with AI-assisted segmentation. During data analysis, we excluded two annotators due to highly inconsistent segmentations. We measured annotation time in seconds and compared segmentations using the DICE score. Results: We showed that AI assistance shortened average annotation time by 96 seconds when compared to unassisted segmentation and helped produce more similar segmentations across annotators while maintaining similar DICE score between the annotators' segmentations and the expert's (mean DICE difference 0.02). Additionally, challenging images (i.e., unassisted DICE score < 0.3) showed the highest improvements in segmentation quality (mean DICE improvement: 0.38). Conclusions: We showed how OPTIMEyes can improve segmentation of GA from fundus autofluorescence by shortening annotation time and improving agreement across annotators without sacrificing segmentation quality. Translational Relevance: OPTIMEyes can be integrated in clinician's workflows to provide automated segmentations that can be easily manually improved, increasing the task's effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, it enables the efficient collection of high-quality manually labeled large imaging datasets that can be of great interest to the research community.
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.