Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Machine learning improves trachoma classification accuracy in endemic areas, suggesting an effective tool for surveillance.
Trachoma remains a leading infectious cause of blindness in endemic regions despite progress towards global elimination. Accurate and scalable diagnosis remains challenging in areas with limited ophthalmic expertise. We developed and evaluated a reproducible transfer learning model using eyelid image-based data. We retrospectively analysed anonymised inner eyelid photographs collected from trachoma prevalence surveys conducted in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Australia, Solomon Islands, Colombia, the Gambia, and Guatemala (n = 572 images). Images were categorized as trachoma (n = 251) or not trachoma (n = 321) based on consensus grades from the Global Trachoma Mapping Project (GMTP) certified graders. Data were processed and analysed in R (version 4.4.1) using the keras and tensorflow packages interfaced with Python (version 3.10) through reticulate. A ResNet50 convolutional neural network pretrained on ImageNet was fine-tuned for binary classification. The model was trained for up to 30 epochs with early stopping and adaptive learning-rate reduction. Performance on a held-out validation set (n = 62, 12%) was evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen’s κ. The ResNet50 model achieved an overall accuracy of 85.4% (95% CI 76.3–92%) on the validation set. The model achieved a sensitivity of 80.9% for detecting trachoma and a specificity of 90.5% for correctly identifying non-trachoma eyes. Agreement between predictions and grader labels was substantial (κ = 0.71, 95% CI 0.58–0.84). Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of using a reproducible R-based deep learning pipeline for automated trachoma classification in large-scale surveys. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of automated trachoma classification using a transfer-learning framework. Larger datasets will be required before operational deployment in surveillance programmes. Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kulohoma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: