Randomized trial evaluates synthetic angiography images in diabetic retinopathy, suggesting potential as a noninvasive tool.
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the clinical validity of synthetic ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography (UWFA) images generated from ultra-widefield fundus photography (UWFP) using generative adversarial networks (GANs) in patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR). Methods: Two GAN-based models, RegGAN and UWAFA-GAN, were trained to generate synthetic UWFA images from corresponding UWFP acquired using Optos California P200DTx. The dataset included 2084 image pairs (no DR: 124; nonproliferative DR: 795; severe NPDR: 770; proliferative DR: 395). Technical image similarity was assessed using peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity index (SSIM). Clinical similarity was assessed by expert graders using the DR severity scale, comparing the synthetic images with corresponding real UWFA images. Results: Both models demonstrated acceptable performance in generating synthetic UWFA images from UWFP (F1-score range: 0.281-0.709; SSIM: 0.43-0.585; PSNR: 18.15-19.90). UWAFA-GAN achieved higher quantitative similarity metrics (SSIM and PSNR), indicating superior overall image fidelity, whereas RegGAN showed stronger clinical correlation with ground-truth UWFA, achieving higher diagnostic accuracy (66.7% vs. 49.2%) and more balanced precision, recall, and F1-scores across DR severity levels. This suggests that while UWAFA-GAN excels in pixel-level resemblance, RegGAN better preserves diagnostically relevant features. Conclusions: GAN models successfully generated UWFA images from UWFP in patients with DR. With further improvements, such models may serve as a complementary noninvasive imaging tool in selected clinical settings and may extend accessibility in resource-limiting settings. Translational Relevance: GAN-based synthetic angiography may serve as a noninvasive alternative to UWFA, particularly when conventional angiography is contraindicated or unavailable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: