ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Outer retinal band segmentation in healthy subjects: comparative study between human grading and deep convolutional neural networks.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate identification of outer retinal bands (ORBs) on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) is clinically important for the assessment and monitoring of several retinal diseases. However, manual segmentation of these ORBs is time-consuming and subject to considerable intra- and inter-observer variability. Deep convolutional neural networks (dCNNs) offer a promising approach for achieving more consistent and reproducible segmentation of retinal microstructures, yet their performance for individual ORBs and their dependence on grader reliability remain insufficiently characterized. The aim of this study was to compare manual grading and different dCNN architectures for the segmentation of individual ORBs in healthy subjects, while assessing the reproducibility of human annotations and the performance of automated methods. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using foveal-centered SD-OCT scans obtained from healthy participants. Manual segmentation of the second hyperreflective band (Band 2), the third and fourth hyperreflective bands (Band 3+4) and photoreceptor outer segments (POS) was performed by two trained graders using onboard OCT software. Reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Human annotations were used to train different dCNNs pretrained with Sparse masked modelling on unlabelled data. The performance of the dCNNs was evaluated using dice score and pixel difference analyses. Results: One hundred eyes of healthy subjects were included. The intraclass correlation values were 0.737 (0.689, 0.779), 0.830 (0.795, 0.860) and 0.878 (0.852, 0.900), and the ICCs were 0.104 (-0.049, 0.253), 0.810 (0.740, 0.862) and 0.752 (0.678, 0.812) for Band 2, Band 3+4 and POS, respectively. From the dCNN, DRUNET showed the best performance: 0.916 for Band 2, 0.924 for Band 3+4 and 0.910 for POS. Pixel difference analysis between DRUNET and grader 1 showed a deviation of 0.89±0.44. Conclusions: Manual segmentation of ORBs demonstrated moderate to high repeatability, whereas Band 2 segmentation showed low reproducibility. DRUNET outperformed other dCNN architectures, showing great potential to reduce inter-observer variability.
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.