Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39703282›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Ocular Duction Measurement Using Three Convolutional Neural Network Models: A Comparative Study.

Suthicha Chuntranapaporn, Raveewan Choontanom, Worapot Srimanan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Suthicha ChuntranapapornOphthalmology, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, THA.
Raveewan ChoontanomOphthalmology, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, THA.
Worapot SrimananOphthalmology, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, THA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study primarily aimed to compare the accuracy of three convolutional neural network (CNN) models in measuring the four positions of ocular duction. Further, it secondarily aimed to compare the accuracy of each CNN model in the training dataset versus the ophthalmologist measurements.

methodsThis study included 526 subjects aged over 18 who visited the ophthalmology outpatient department. Ocular images were captured using mobile phones in various gaze positions and stored anonymously as JPEG files. Ocular duction was measured by assessing corneal light reflex deviation from the central cornea. Ductions were classified into 30, 60, and 90 prism diopters (PD) and full ductions from the primary position. Three CNN models, MobileNet, ResNet, and EfficientNet, were used to classify ocular duction. Their predictive ability was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. The dataset was divided into the training (2,001 images), evaluation (213 images), and testing (190 images) groups, which were reconstructed using the routine follow-up data of volunteers at the Ophthalmology Department of Phramongkutklao Hospital between February 2023 and June 2023.

resultsTo evaluate the data, the MobileNet_V3_Large, ResNet101, and EfficientNet_B5 models were utilized to measure duction angles with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The training times for MobileNet, ResNet, and EfficientNet were 5.54, 9.56, and 26.39 minutes, respectively. In the testing phase, MobileNet, ResNet, and EfficientNet were used to measure each duction position: 30 PD with corresponding ROC curve values of 0.77, 0.5, and 0.58; 60 PD with ROC curve values of 0.71, 0.83, and 0.81; 90 PD with ROC curve values of 0.7, 0.73, and 0.81; and full duction with ROC curve values of 0.91, 0.93, and 0.94, respectively. Analysis of variance revealed no significant difference in the mean AUROC curves among the models, yielding a p-value of 0.936. MobileNet has the narrowest confidence intervals for average prediction accuracy across three CNN models.

conclusionsThe three CNN models did not significantly differ in terms of efficacy in detecting various duction positions. However, MobileNet stands out, with a narrower confidence interval and shorter training time, which indicates its potential application.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceconvolutional neural networksmeasurementocular ductionophthalmology

Identifiers

PMID39703282
PMCPMC11658897

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.