ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Deep Learning for Diagnosis of Choroideremia and
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate deep learning models to differentiate choroideremia (CHM), Design: Retrospective diagnostic study with external validation. Subjects: Two hundred sixty-two participants contributed 535 macular OCT volumes acquired on a Heidelberg Spectralis (10 165 B-scans): 99 participants had Methods: Volumes acquired between 2012 and 2021 were standardized to 19 B-scans and split at the patient level into training (76%), validation (12%), and test (12%) sets. Three strategies were compared: (1) a slice-based convolutional neural network (CNN) (ResNet-50) with majority-vote aggregation; (2) a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model with learned slice weighting; and (3) a hybrid CNN-Transformer integrating per-slice features across the volume. Two ophthalmologists masked to clinical and genetic data graded the 80 test volumes. Main Outcome Measures: Volume-level accuracy and weighted F1-score. Results: On the independent test set (80 volumes: 33 Conclusions: Deep learning applied to macular OCT volumes accurately distinguished CHM, USH2A-associated rod-cone dystrophy, and healthy controls, and achieved higher observed accuracy than masked human readers in this OCT-only setting. Both learned slice weighting and simple aggregation achieved strong performance, suggesting that increased architectural complexity may not be necessary for this 3-class classification task. Further validation in larger, more diverse, and clinically representative cohorts is required to determine the potential role of such models as complementary diagnostic support. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.