ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2026
Exploratory study on a novel automatic quantification software by artificial intelligence for geographic atrophy associated to age-related macular degeneration.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the accuracy and repeatability of novel artificial intelligence (AI)–based software for automated quantification of geographic atrophy (GA) associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) images.
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study included 33 eyes from 33 patients with GA secondary to AMD and one healthy control eye, all without a history of choroidal neovascularization. Each eye underwent three consecutive 7 × 7 mm2 SS-OCT scans (Topcon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Two independent observers manually delineated GA areas on en face OCT images in a masked fashion at two time points separated by 15 days. Individual and mean manual measurements were compared with automated AI-derived GA measurements, yielding a total of 165 measurements. Lesions were categorized according to morphology (regular vs. irregular) and number (single vs. multiple). Agreement between manual and AI measurements was assessed using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Software repeatability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on a two-way mixed-effects model.
resultsThe mean patient age was 73.4 ± 11.7 years. Twelve eyes exhibited regular lesion morphology, and 11 eyes had single GA lesions. Intra-observer repeatability was excellent, with ICCs of 0.999 (95% CI, 0.997–0.999) for Observer X and 0.999 (95% CI, 0.999–0.999) for Observer Y. Agreement between the mean manual measurements of both observers was also high (ICC = 0.997; 95% CI, 0.989–0.999). Agreement between AI-based measurements and the mean of the four manual annotations was strong for the overall cohort (CCC = 0.992; 95% CI, 0.981–0.998). Stratified analyses showed CCCs of 0.989 (95% CI, 0.816–0.997) for regular lesions and 0.988 (95% CI, 0.944–0.998) for irregular lesions, and 0.999 (95% CI, 0.998–1.000) for single lesions and 0.984 (95% CI, 0.963–0.995) for multiple lesions. Agreement by lesion size was lower for small lesions (< 3.7 mm2; n = 12; CCC = 0.903; 95% CI, 0.742–0.974) and higher for medium (3.7–9.4 mm2; n = 13; CCC = 0.978; 95% CI, 0.940–0.994) and large lesions (> 9.4 mm2; n = 8; CCC = 0.956; 95% CI, 0.676–0.998).
conclusionsThis AI-based software demonstrates high accuracy and excellent repeatability for automated GA area quantification across different lesion morphologies, numbers, and sizes, with minimal processing time. These findings could support its potential utility in routine clinical practice and research applications. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.