ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
The Use of Deep Learning in Distinguishing Chalazion and Eyelid Mass.
Article in Journal of 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.
- The Use of Deep Learning in Distinguishing Chalazion and Eyelid Mass.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Our study investigated the ability of artificial intelligence to differentiate eyelid lesions to support its potential use as a tool to better inform referrals to oculoplastic surgery specialists by other healthcare providers. Specifically, our study tested artificial intelligence's ability to distinguish benign chalazia from alternative eyelid masses that may require advanced subspecialized care with oculoplastic specialists. Methods: This retrospective case-control study included 206 photographs of diagnosed chalazia from 183 patients and 517 photographs from 486 patients with non-chalazia eyelid lesions to train and test a convolutional neural network (CNN). Network architectures including VGG-16, VGG-19, ResNet50, Xception, and MobileNetV2 were trained. Their performances were compared using the area under the curve (AUC) as the main outcome metric. Additionally, performances of CNN models were compared to those of frontline physicians. Results: VGG-16 and VGG-19 architectures achieved meaningful performance when trained with photographs of chalazion and eyelid mass achieving AUCs of 0.797 and 0.703, respectively. Adjusting detection thresholding allowed the VGG-16 and VGG-19 models to achieve sensitivity of 93% and 98% in predicting eyelid mass, respectively. This was an improvement over classification by frontline physicians who achieved an accuracy of 61% and a sensitivity of 65% for mass detection. Conclusions: We showed that using a CNN trained with clinical external photographs could successfully distinguish a chalazion from an alternative eyelid mass, supporting its potential use as a tool for healthcare providers to assist in determining whether a mass requires oculoplastic referral for subspecialty care.
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.