ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Deep Learning for Detection of Corneal Perforation on Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography in Microbial Keratitis.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and evaluate deep learning models for automated detection of corneal perforation in microbial keratitis using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (ASOCT) images. Methods: We enrolled 150 patients with microbiologically confirmed keratitis. Contralateral healthy eyes served as controls. Four convolutional neural network models using ResNet architecture were trained and evaluated using ASOCT images to classify the presence or absence of corneal perforation at the eye level. Ground truth labels for perforation were established following consensus grading by two masked ophthalmologist graders. Models differed in inclusion of healthy controls and masking of non-corneal anterior segment anatomy. Results: The best-performing model (Model 1), which included healthy controls and randomly applied masking of the inferior image portion during training, achieved an AUC of 0.965 (95% CI, 0.911-0.995), sensitivity of 84.0% (95% CI, 70.0%-97.1%), and specificity of 97.8% (95% CI, 96.1%-99.3%) for detection of corneal perforation. Models including healthy controls outperformed those without, and lens masking improved discrimination. Conclusions: Deep learning models achieved high diagnostic accuracy for detecting corneal perforation on ASOCT imaging in eyes with microbial keratitis. These findings support the potential role of automated ASOCT analysis as a clinical decision support tool for identifying this vision-threatening complication.
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.