ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Predicting progression to proliferative diabetic retinopathy using automated versus manual quantification of retinal haemorrhages.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare automated and manual quantification of retinal haemorrhages in eyes with diabetic retinopathy (DR) and to analyse the risk of progression to proliferative DR (PDR).
methodsRetinal haemorrhages on ultra-widefield (UWF) pseudocolor images in eyes with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) were manually segmented. DR severity was assessed within the seven ETDRS fields at baseline and 1-year follow-up. Lesions were also automatically segmented using EyeRead UWF software (Eyenuk) and the frequency and area of retinal haemorrhages and the average distance of haemorrhages from the optic nerve centre were computed. Manual and automated results were compared and correlated with progression to PDR at one year.
resultsSixty-three eyes with NPDR at baseline were included, of which 29 progressed to PDR over one year. The automated measurements of total haemorrhage frequency, area and the distance from the optic nerve were significantly lower compared to manual grading, but the parameters were significantly correlated (r = 0.5-0.96; all P < 0.001). The distance of the haemorrhages from the optic nerve was found to be a significant risk factor for progression to proliferative DR from both approaches.
conclusionsAutomated detection of retinal haemorrhages may serve as a surrogate to the manual grading in predicting the progression to PDR. Although the automated approach detects a lower number of lesions compared to manual grading, the results are correlated and the automatically determined parameters are still predictive of progression.
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.