ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) in Identifying Retinal Conditions Through Classification of Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) Images.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for posterior capsule opacification.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness globally, emphasizing the urgent need for efficient diagnostic tools. Machine learning, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), has shown promise in automating the diagnosis of retinal conditions with high accuracy. This study evaluates two CNN models, VGG16 and InceptionV3, for classifying retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) images into four categories: normal, choroidal neovascularization, diabetic macular edema (DME), and drusen. Methods Using 83,000 OCT images across four categories, the CNNs were trained and tested via Python-based libraries, including TensorFlow and Keras. Metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were analyzed with confusion matrices and performance graphs. Comparisons of dataset sizes evaluated the impact on model accuracy with tools deployed on JupyterLab. Results VGG16 and InceptionV3 achieved accuracy between 85% and 95%, with VGG16 peaking at 94% and outperforming InceptionV3 (92%). Larger datasets improved sensitivity by 7% and accuracy across all categories, with the highest performance for normal and drusen classifications. Metrics like sensitivity and specificity positively correlated with dataset size. Conclusions The study confirms CNNs' potential in retinal diagnostics, achieving high classification accuracy. Limitations included reliance on grayscale images and computational intensity, which hindered finer distinctions. Future work should integrate data augmentation, patient-specific variables, and lightweight architectures to optimize performance for clinical use, reducing costs and improving outcomes.
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.