ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Automatic Determination of Endothelial Cell Density From Donor Cornea Endothelial Cell Images.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: Practical Applications, Subspecialty Evidence and Real-World Deployment.Cureus · 2025Review
- Current concepts and recent trends in endothelial keratoplasty.World journal of transplantation · 2025Review
- RetOCTNet: Deep Learning-Based Segmentation of OCT Images Following Retinal Ganglion Cell Injury.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
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
Purpose: To determine endothelial cell density (ECD) from real-world donor cornea endothelial cell (EC) images using a self-supervised deep learning segmentation model. Methods: Two eye banks (Eversight, VisionGift) provided 15,138 single, unique EC images from 8169 donors along with their demographics, tissue characteristics, and ECD. This dataset was utilized for self-supervised training and deep learning inference. The Cornea Image Analysis Reading Center (CIARC) provided a second dataset of 174 donor EC images based on image and tissue quality. These images were used to train a supervised deep learning cell border segmentation model. Evaluation between manual and automated determination of ECD was restricted to the 1939 test EC images with at least 100 cells counted by both methods. Results: The ECD measurements from both methods were in excellent agreement with rc of 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.79; P < 0.001) and bias of 123 cells/mm2 (95% CI, 114-131; P < 0.001); 81% of the automated ECD values were within 10% of the manual ECD values. When the analysis was further restricted to the cropped image, the rc was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.87-0.89; P < 0.001), bias was 46 cells/mm2 (95% CI, 39-53; P < 0.001), and 93% of the automated ECD values were within 10% of the manual ECD values. Conclusions: Deep learning analysis provides accurate ECDs of donor images, potentially reducing analysis time and training requirements. Translational Relevance: The approach of this study, a robust methodology for automatically evaluating donor cornea EC images, could expand the quantitative determination of endothelial health beyond ECD.
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.