ArticleScientific reports2026
Retinal lesion annotation on fundus imaging: an interobserver variability study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Abstract
Accurate detection and segmentation of retinal lesions in fundus photographs is essential for diagnosing diabetic retinopathy (DR) and for developing reliable machine learning models for this purpose. However, the reliability of manual annotation of retinal lesions by clinical experts has yet to be evaluated. We quantified interobserver variability in the pixel-wise annotation of microaneurysms (µA), intraretinal hemorrhages (Hem), hard exudates (Ex), and cotton-wool spots (CWS) using 51 images from the MAPLES-DR dataset, independently annotated by three senior retinologists. Manual segmentation showed substantial variability: 38% of lesions marked by one observer were undetected by the others, lesion coordinates differed by approximately one third of the lesion diameter, and the mean interobserver IoU was 0.47, indicating inconsistent contour delineation even when observers detected the same lesion. Paradoxically, inter-expert DR grading assessments were largely concordant, suggesting reliance on more holistic or experience-based judgment criteria rather than on lesion counting. We assessed a semi-automated workflow in which annotators corrected model-generated pre-segmentations. This approach markedly improved agreement, yielding a pixel-wise mean IoU of 0.71, reducing both detection and contour-related variability; over 90% of lesions were preserved directly from the pre-segmentation.
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.