ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Validation of Automated Software for Guttae Quantification in Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Topology-Aware Extension of Guttae Area Ratio in Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in corneal endothelial disease and endothelial keratoplasty: current evidence, clinical readiness, and future directions.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Corneal guttae are the hallmark pathologic phenotype of Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD). Tools performing quantitative analysis of guttae and their changes over time are needed as medical therapies advance. We developed and validated a novel automated software platform that reports the guttae area ratio (GAR) in FECD specular microscopy images. Methods: Patients with FECD with modified Krachmer grade (mKg) 2 to 5 disease and no prior keratoplasty were enrolled and imaged prospectively with one specular microscope unit. In a validation study, expert manual grading and automated software grading of GAR were compared for agreement. Additional images were analyzed to correlate automated GAR with disease grade and subclinical edema by Scheimpflug imaging. Results: Nineteen images were included in the validation study. Mean manual GAR (0.400 ± 0.213) and mean automated GAR (0.395 ± 0.182) demonstrated equivalence (P = 0.003). Additionally, 446 images (109 eyes) demonstrated that automated GAR increases with worsening disease in mKg 2 to 5. Most mKg 4 images (n = 172, 93.5%; 49 eyes) and mKg 5 images (n = 59, 55.1%; 19 eyes) had no evidence of definite subclinical edema. Repeat image analysis demonstrated high repeatability of GAR (intraclass correlation = 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.90). Conclusions: This study validates that automated software for guttae quantification in FECD specular microscopy images is equivalent to manual expert grading. GAR, an objective metric that increases in direct proportion to mKg, may precede development of subclinical edema. Translational Relevance: This software supports precise quantification of FECD disease secondary to guttae, allowing for objective measurement of disease progression and therapeutic efficacy.
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.