ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Effect of Signal-Strength Filtering on 3D Convolutional Neural Network-Based Visual Field Estimation From Macular OCT.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether excluding low-signal-strength optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans from training improves deep learning-based visual field (VF) estimation from macular OCT volumes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 79,803 paired OCT and VF examinations from 8511 patients at five institutions. A three-dimensional convolutional neural network (3DCNN) estimated 24-2 and 10-2 pointwise sensitivities and mean deviation (MD) from NIDEK OCT volumes. Using patient-wise 10-fold cross-validation, we compared training on all scans with filtering at signal strength indices (SSIs) ≥ 7; training sets differed in size and SSI composition, and both models were tested on identical held-out samples stratified by SSI. Outcomes were pointwise mean absolute error (MAE) and absolute MD error. Results: Mean SSI was 8.03 ± 1.65; 85.5% of scans had SSI ≥ 7. In the SSI < 7 subgroup, the all-SSI-trained model yielded lower errors for all endpoints, with reductions of 0.439 dB (24-2 MAE), 0.473 dB (10-2 MAE), 0.417 dB (24-2 MD error), and 0.453 dB (10-2 MD error; all adjusted P < 0.001). In the SSI ≥ 7 subgroup, no significant differences were observed. Error increased as SSI decreased, without a clear threshold at SSI = 7. Conclusions: In this EfficientNet 3D-based segmentation-free 3DCNN framework, using OCT scans across the full SSI range was associated with lower error in low-SSI held-out scans, with no significant penalty in higher SSI held-out scans in the primary comparison within this dataset. Translational Relevance: Including lower-signal-strength NIDEK macular OCT scans in development may improve robustness to lower-SSI inputs in this segmentation-free OCT-based VF framework.
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.