ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Automated Optic Disc Tilt Classification in Fundus Photographs Using Segmentation and the Elliptical Ratio: External Clinical Validation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optic disc tilt is a morphological change in myopic eyes that complicates clinical interpretation and artificial intelligence (AI)-based analysis of fundus images. Accurate detection of optic disc tilt is necessary to avoid misinterpretation of disc morphology and enhance diagnostic reliability across different disease types. Objective: This study developed and externally validated an end-to-end AI-based pipeline for optic disc segmentation and quantitative tilt classification in color fundus photographs (CFPs), offering an objective alternative to manual segmentation and subjective clinical assessments. Methods: We trained a nnU-Net-based optic disc segmentation model on the Standardized Multi-Channel Dataset for Glaucoma (SMDG; n=3103 CFPs) and externally validated it on the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) dataset (n=2448 CFPs from n=1370 patients). Model generalizability was assessed using both a fixed 80:20 random split and 5-fold cross-validation. Tilt was classified using the ratio of the long-axis diameter to the short-axis diameter, with a ratio of ≥1.3 indicating tilt. Segmentation performance was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient, intersection over union, and pixel accuracy on the SMDG dataset and using the clinical acceptance rate determined by 2 independent ophthalmologists on the external SMC dataset. Results: Using the SMDG dataset, nnU-Net achieved consistently high performance, with mean Dice similarity coefficients of 0.956 (SD 0.042) across 5-fold cross-validation and 0.961 (SD 0.055) for the best-performing single-fold model across 8 datasets. On the SMC dataset, 2 independent expert reviews yielded mean clinical acceptance rates of 98.61% and 98.86% across disease types, with acceptance rates ranging from 81.63% and 93.88% for edema to 99.59% and 99.17% for pallor, respectively. Tilt was detected in 7.5% (186/2448) of images, with rates of 9.7% (118/1215) for normal images, 3.9% (35/894) for glaucoma, 7.8% (19/241) for pallor, and 14.2% (14/98) for edema. Segmentation errors were observed in 1.39% (34/2448) and 1.14% (28/2448) of cases by the 2 reviewers, mainly due to edema-related swelling, peripapillary atrophy, and vessel confusion. Conclusions: Our pipeline provides objective and reproducible detection of optic disc tilt in CFPs, with strong generalizability to clinical images. By replacing manual segmentation and subjective assessments, the pipeline supports tilt-aware AI diagnostics and scalable screening for myopia-related conditions, with future refinements needed to address edema-related challenges.
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.