ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Automated interpretation of fundus fluorescein angiography with multi-retinal vascular lesion segmentation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Automated Nonperfusion Quantification in Diabetic Retinopathy on Ultra-Widefield Swept-Source OCT Angiography.Ophthalmology science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) is essential for diagnosing and managing retinal vascular diseases, yet its evaluation is time-consuming and subject to inter-observer variability. We aim to develop a deep-learning-based framework for multi-lesion segmentation in FFA images and to evaluate its primary performance on standard 55 ° images. Methods: A dataset of 428 standard 55 ° FFA images and 53 ultra-wide-field (UWF) FFA images was annotated for non-perfusion areas (NPA), microaneurysms (MA), neovascularization (NV) and laser spots. A residual U-Net framework was trained using a data-pooling strategy. The primary analysis was performed on the 55 ° test set, whereas the UWF subset was analyzed only as a preliminary exploratory observation because of its limited sample size. Performance was assessed using Dice score, Intersection over Union (IoU) and recall. Results: On 55 ° FFA images, the model achieved Dice scores of 0.65 ± 0.24 for NPA, 0.70 ± 0.13 for MA, 0.73 ± 0.23 for NV, and 0.70 ± 0.17 for laser spots. In an exploratory analysis of UWF images, overlap-based performance was lower for NPA (0.48 ± 0.21, Conclusion: This study has established a highly consistent and reproducible framework for multi-lesion segmentation in FFA images. The model may help standardize lesion quantification, reduce manual grading burden, and support future development of larger multi-center FFA datasets.
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.