ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Learning Ophthalmologist Clinical Reasoning for Glaucoma Diagnosis from Fundus Images.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Ophthalmologists diagnose glaucoma through a structured reasoning process by sequentially evaluating optic nerve head characteristics before reaching a final diagnosis, whereas existing AI systems typically perform direct image classification without providing clinically meaningful reasoning. We present the first clinically annotated fundus reasoning dataset, comprising 1,077 fundus photographs paired with expert-authored six-step diagnostic reports. Building on this dataset, we develop a reasoning-driven vision-language framework that explicitly models the ophthalmologist's diagnostic workflow by generating structured clinical reasoning prior to diagnosis. The generated reports are clinically validated, achieving the best performance across all evaluated clinical findings, including a cup-to-disc ratio mean absolute error of 0.070, an ISNT Kendall distance of 1.73, and the highest semantic agreement with expert reports (BERTScore-F1 = 0.874). The resulting framework also improves glaucoma diagnosis, achieving a balanced accuracy of 94.7% and precision of 94.8%, demonstrating that explicitly modeling expert clinical reasoning simultaneously improves interpretability and diagnostic performance. Code and data are available at https://glaucoma-cot.github.io/.
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.