ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Can a Natural Image-Based Foundation Model Outperform a Retina-Specific Model in Detecting Ocular and Systemic Diseases?
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From retina to heart: explainable machine learning using OCT and Clinical covariates for heart failure screening.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Vision Encoders for Image Classification in Ophthalmology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: DINOv2 is a natural image-based foundation model (FM), pretrained exclusively on 142 million natural images from the LVD-142M data set. In contrast, RETFound is a retina-specific FM, pretrained on ∼3 million images, including natural images, color fundus photos, and OCT images (∼1 million each). Despite DINOv2's massive pretraining data set, its application in ophthalmology and relative performance to domain-specific FMs remain understudied. To address this gap, we conducted a head-to-head comparative evaluation between DINOv2 and RETFound models across a range of downstream ocular and systemic disease tasks. Design: Retrospective head-to-head evaluation. Subjects: Ocular disease detection tasks included diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, and multiclass eye diseases, whereas systemic disease incidence prediction focused on the 3-year incidence of heart failure, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Eight open-source data sets (APTOS-2019, IDRID, MESSIDOR2 for DR; PAPILA, Glaucoma Fundus for glaucoma; JSIEC, Retina, OCTID for multiclass eye diseases) and the Moorfields AlzEye data set (for systemic diseases) were used for fine-tuning and internal testing. External test sets included the same open-source data sets (cross-dataset validation) and the UK Biobank (for systemic diseases). Methods: We replicated the fine-tuning methodology from the original RETFound study on 3 DINOv2 models (large, base, small). All models were fine-tuned on the respective data sets and evaluated through internal and external testing. Main Outcome Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve and 2-sided t-tests were used to compare models' performances. Results: For ocular disease detection, DINOv2 models generally outperformed RETFound. For DR, DINOv2-Large achieved AUCs of 0.850 to 0.952, exceeding RETFound's 0.823 to 0.944 (all Conclusions: Our findings reveal the merits of DINOv2 in ocular disease detection tasks, whereas RETFound demonstrates an edge in systemic disease incidence prediction. These findings showcase the distinct scenarios where general-purpose and domain-specific FMs excel, highlighting the importance of aligning FM selection with task-specific requirements to optimize clinical performance. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.