ArticleVeterinary ophthalmology2026
A Comparative Analysis of Deep Convolutional Networks for Automated Diagnosis of Retinal Detachment in Dogs.
Article in Veterinary ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
- Artificial intelligence, epistemic authority, and emerging risks in veterinary clinical decision-making.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare ImageNet-pretrained deep convolutional neural networks for automated detection of retinal detachment (RD) in canine fundus photographs. ANIMALS STUDIED: Archived fundus images from 275 dogs. PROCEDURES: In this multicenter retrospective study, 2000 color fundus photographs (793 RD; 1207 normal) acquired between 2020 and 2025 were included after quality filtering. Data were split at the patient level into training (80%) and an independent validation set (20%). Transfer learning was applied to three pretrained architectures (ResNet50V2, VGG16, EfficientNetB0) using standardized preprocessing and real-time augmentation. Performance on the validation set was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were estimated by bootstrapping.
resultsResNet50V2 achieved the best overall discrimination (accuracy 0.8909; AUC 0.9194), followed by EfficientNetB0 (accuracy 0.8182; AUC 0.8831). VGG16 showed limited reliability (accuracy 0.6182; AUC 0.6868) due to a high false-positive rate. Gradient-weighted class activation mapping indicated that the best-performing model consistently attended to regions consistent with retinal detachment.
conclusionsResNet50V2-based analysis of canine fundus photographs shows strong potential as a scalable screening support tool for RD. Prospective external validation across additional devices and practice settings is warranted before routine clinical implementation.
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.