ArticlePloS one2026
Combined diagnostic accuracy of two artificial intelligence systems for glaucoma diagnosis using color fundus photography.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) systems based on color fundus photography (CFP), the Laguna ONhE and VUNO Med-Fundus AI, for glaucoma detection, both independently and in combination.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included 370 eyes from 193 patients (248 eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma and 122 healthy eyes). All eyes underwent structural evaluation with swept-source optical coherence tomography (Triton, Topcon) and visual field testing (Octopus 900, Haag-Streit AG). Fundus photographs were analyzed using Laguna ONhE and VUNO Med-Fundus AI systems. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated.
resultsBoth AI systems demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy. Laguna achieved an AUC of 0.879 using Glaucoma Discriminant Function (GDF), and VUNO showed an AUC of 0.857. When combined, GDF + VUNO achieved an AUC of 0.903. The Global Mean Deviation (GMD) reached the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.916), which was not significantly different from GDF + VUNO (p = 0.146).
conclusionsLaguna ONhE and VUNO Med-Fundus AI had high diagnostic accuracy in detecting glaucoma using only CFP. Their combined use improved further, achieving accuracy comparable to the GMD. This represents a practical approach for glaucoma screening, particularly in settings without access to OCT or automated perimetry.
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.