ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2022
Detection of trachoma using machine learning approaches.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Generalizability of Multiregional versus Locally Trained Deep Learning Models for Trachoma Detection.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Identifying Borderline Trachoma Grades Using a Three-Latent Class Model.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in the anterior segment of eye diseases.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- A Virtual Reading Center Model Using Crowdsourcing to Grade Photographs for Trachoma: Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThough significant progress in disease elimination has been made over the past decades, trachoma is the leading infectious cause of blindness globally. Further efforts in trachoma elimination are paradoxically being limited by the relative rarity of the disease, which makes clinical training for monitoring surveys difficult. In this work, we evaluate the plausibility of an Artificial Intelligence model to augment or replace human image graders in the evaluation/diagnosis of trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF).
methodsWe utilized a dataset consisting of 2300 images with a 5% positivity rate for TF. We developed classifiers by implementing two state-of-the-art Convolutional Neural Network architectures, ResNet101 and VGG16, and applying a suite of data augmentation/oversampling techniques to the positive images. We then augmented our data set with additional images from independent research groups and evaluated performance.
resultsModels performed well in minimizing the number of false negatives, given the constraint of the low numbers of images in which TF was present. The best performing models achieved a sensitivity of 95% and positive predictive value of 50-70% while reducing the number images requiring skilled grading by 66-75%. Basic oversampling and data augmentation techniques were most successful at improving model performance, while techniques that are grounded in clinical experience, such as highlighting follicles, were less successful. DISCUSSION: The developed models perform well and significantly reduce the burden on graders by minimizing the number of false negative identifications. Further improvements in model skill will benefit from data sets with more TF as well as a range in image quality and image capture techniques used. While these models approach/meet the community-accepted standard for skilled field graders (i.e., Cohen's Kappa >0.7), they are insufficient to be deployed independently/clinically at this time; rather, they can be utilized to significantly reduce the burden on skilled image graders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.