ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Diagnostic accuracy of image-based deep learning for glaucomatous optic neuropathy detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies have explored the use of deep learning (DL) algorithms based on fundus photography (FP) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) for the detection of glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON). However, high-quality evidence regarding their diagnostic accuracy remains insufficient. Therefore, this study systematically evaluated the diagnostic performance of DL algorithms for GON detection and compared their accuracy with that of clinical experts to inform the development and optimization of intelligent diagnostic systems.
methodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched until May 28, 2026. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analyses were conducted based on validation datasets, and subgroup analyses were performed according to imaging modality.
resultsA total of 30 eligible studies were included, of which 24 were incorporated into the meta-analysis. For DL algorithms based on FP, the pooled sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPC) for GON detection were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.95), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 11.9 (95% CI: 8.3-17.0) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12), respectively. For clinical experts diagnosing GON using FP, the pooled SEN, SPC, PLR, and NLR were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.78-0.95), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.96), 10.7 (95% CI: 5.3-21.5), and 0.12 (95% CI: 0.05-0.26), respectively. For DL models based on OCT, the pooled SEN, SPC, PLR, and NLR were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80-0.92), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.94), 9.5 (95% CI: 6.3-14.2), and 0.14 (95% CI: 0.09-0.22), respectively. Likelihood ratios presented in the nomogram were rounded to integers to facilitate rapid clinical interpretation.
conclusionsDL models based on FP and OCT demonstrated diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of clinical experts in identifying GON, with FP-based models showing a tendency toward higher SEN. However, in the current application of DL for the detection of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, the generation of validation datasets relies predominantly on internal validation. Although the diagnostic performance of these models is not inferior to that of clinical experts, the results should not be interpreted with undue optimism, and a cautious attitude should be maintained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42536192What 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.