ArticleScientific reports2026
Deep learning-based segmentation and density estimation of corneal nerves and dendritic cells from In Vivo confocal microscopy images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare manual assessment of corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) and dendritic cell (DC) density with an automated assessment method utilizing deep learning segmentation to perform rule-based density estimation. Corneal images were acquired using in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) from 100 participants with persistent ocular symptoms after mild COVID-19 (Group 1) and 30 controls without symptoms (Group 2). In total, 1,300 IVCM images were selected and manually annotated for CNFL, and 1,300 for DCs (with dendrites and without dendrites), using FIJI tools. The between-method difference in mean CNFL density was 0.2 [Formula: see text] (95% CI: [0.09, 0.23]) for Group 1 and -0.2 [Formula: see text] (95% CI: [-0.34, -0.10]) for Group 2. For Group 1, the mean difference for DCs with dendrites was -1.1 [Formula: see text] (95% CI: [-1.78, -0.39]), and for DCs without dendrites it was -3.1 [Formula: see text] (95% CI: [-5.1, -1.0]). For Group 2, the mean difference for DCs with dendrites was -1.0 [Formula: see text] (95% CI: [-1.79, -0.27]), and for DCs without dendrites it was 0.3 [Formula: see text] (95% CI: [-1.93, 2.60]). Both manual and automated methods showed significant between-group differences for CNFL (p=0.012 and p=0.034, respectively) and DC densities (p=0.005 and p=0.010). The automated approach performed comparably to manual assessment, supporting its potential for reliable, scalable analysis of CNFL and DC in IVCM images.
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.