ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Artificial intelligence-assisted diagnosis and subtype differentiation of infectious keratitis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfectious keratitis (IK) is a major cause of corneal blindness world-wide, and prompt identification of IK and its etiologic subtype is essential for appropriate management. We developed deep learning (DL) models to detect IK and differentiate common subtypes from slit-lamp photographs.
methodsIn this retrospective study, slit-lamp photographs were collected from patients presenting to the emergency department of Farabi Eye Hospital (2014-2021) with bacterial keratitis (BK), fungal keratitis (FK), Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK), or herpes simplex keratitis (HSK), along with healthy controls and corneal scars. A total of 13,953 images were included. Three DL classifiers were trained: Model 1 (IK vs. normal), Model 2 (healthy vs. corneal scar vs. IK [pooled subtypes]), and Model 3 (BK vs. FK vs. AK vs. HSK).
resultsModel 1 achieved 99.9% accuracy for IK vs. normal (ROC-AUC 0.999). In five-fold cross-validation, Model 2 achieved mean accuracy 0.975 (95% CI 0.955-0.996), macro-F1 0.970 (95% CI 0.945-0.995), and macro-average AU-ROC 0.998 (95% CI 0.995-1.000). For subtype classification (Model 3), overall accuracy was 81.6% with balanced recall 83.3%; class accuracies were 88% (BK), 71% (FK), 72% (AK), and 93% (HSK) with ROC-AUCs 0.90-0.98. External validation of Model 3 (Ankara City Hospital; 665 images from 96 patients) showed accuracy 92.5%, macro-F1 93%, macro-average AUROC 0.996, and sensitivities of 95.2% (AK), 92.0% (BK), 85.5% (FK), and 99.5% (HSK).
conclusionsDL models applied to slit-lamp photographs showed high performance for IK detection and clinically relevant differentiation of IK from corneal scars and among major IK subtypes, with external validation supporting generalisability.
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.