ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Comparative Evaluation of Deep Generative Models for Predicting 12-Month Neovascular AMD Progression Using OCT and Fundus Photography.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
The purpose of this study is to systematically compare six deep generative models for predicting long-term anatomic progression of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) from pretreatment retinal imaging. We retrospectively analyzed OCT and fundus images from 85 treatment-naïve eyes initiating anti-VEGF therapy for nAMD. Five GAN-based architectures (BiCycleGAN, CycleGAN, Pix2pixHD, CycleGAN-Turbo, Pix2pix-Turbo) and one diffusion-based model (Stable Diffusion Img2Img) were trained separately for each modality to generate synthetic projections at 3, 6, and 12 months. Quantitative performance was assessed using structural similarity index (SSIM), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), mean squared error (MSE), and root mean squared error (RMSE). Clinical realism was evaluated through a visual Turing test by five blinded expert graders. Pix2pixHD consistently achieved the highest image-quality metrics across all models, modalities, and time points. For OCT, they are SSIM 0.84 and PSNR 27.2 dB (3 months) and SSIM 0.83 and PSNR 25.8 dB (12 months). For fundus photographs, they are SSIM 0.80 and PSNR 26.0 dB (3 months) and SSIM 0.80 and PSNR 24.7 dB (12 months). In the visual Turing test, experts correctly identified synthetic images in 58% of cases (chance level, 50%), with OCT images showing near-chance discriminability (52%) compared to fundus photographs (64%). This study provides the first systematic comparison of multiple generative architectures for long-term nAMD progression prediction. Pix2pixHD achieved the highest fidelity, generating synthetic images whose realism was frequently, though not reliably, distinguished by observers (58%, not significantly different from chance; p = 0.13), particularly for OCT. These findings support the potential of deep generative models for AI-driven decision support in personalized retinal care. This work bridges the gap between computational science and clinical ophthalmology by demonstrating that deep generative models can transform pretreatment retinal images into clinically realistic predictions of disease progression. By enabling visualization of anticipated anatomical outcomes before treatment initiation, these tools have the potential to transition nAMD management from reactive to proactive paradigms, supporting individualized patient counseling, risk stratification, and evidence-based treatment planning at the point of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42552269What 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.