ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparison of Deep Learning Tools for Optic Nerve Axon Quantification Finds Limited Generalizability Upon Independent Validation.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning approaches for automated quantification of optic nerve histology have emerged as tools for the objective assessment of axonal injury in experimental glaucoma models. However, their generalizability to independent datasets remains unclear. Guided by a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this study evaluated the performance of publicly available models on novel datasets. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched (2000-2025). Two reviewers screened studies and extracted model characteristics and performance metrics. Three models (AxoNet, AxonDeepSeg, and AxoNet 2.0) were independently validated on a rat optic nerve dataset (44 images; 6941 axons) and a mouse optic nerve dataset (74 full cross-sections). From 2036 records, four manuscripts describing three deep learning models met the inclusion criteria, with reported correlation coefficients of 0.959-0.99 between model predictions and reference counts. On the rat dataset, the performance correlation declined (r = 0.831-0.907), precision remained high (>0.94), but recall was low (0.18-0.27), with Dice coefficients of 0.29-0.40. On the mouse dataset, correlations decreased further (r = 0.57-0.74) and model rankings differed, reflecting the domain shift and scale-dependent effects. These findings demonstrate strong within-study performance but reduced generalizability to independent datasets, highlighting the need for standardized validation datasets and multi-center testing.
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.