Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 38 references

Cross-Modal Fusion of OCT and OCT angiography enface for Improved Diagnostics of Diabetic Retinopathy

T0 review · 4 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Attention fusion of OCT with single-channel enface OCTA beats OCT-only DR detection, and OCT-translated OCTA can replace hardware OCTA.

desk verdict Solid multi-scenario evidence that OCT + single-channel enface OCTA attention fusion beats a strong OCT-only baseline; the hardware-replacement claim for diffusion TR OCTA is the soft spot and needs stress-testing, not rejection of the whole paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.03959 v1 pith:MXUOSNMQ submitted 2026-07-04 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Rashadul Hasan Badhon , Atalie Carina Thompson , Jennifer I. Lim , Theodore Leng , Minhaj Nur Alam This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords diabeticretinopathyopticalcoherencetomographyOCTangiographycross-modalattentionmultimodalfusiontranslatedOCTAdiffusionmodelmedicalimageclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that fusing structural OCT B-scans with a single-channel enface OCTA map through bidirectional cross-modal attention reliably improves automated detection of diabetic retinopathy versus normal retina. The authors compare a strong OCT-only ConvNeXt V2 baseline against the fused model on two independent cohorts (OCT500 and UIC, 730 subjects total) under within-dataset, pooled, and bidirectional cross-dataset tests. They further claim that OCTA maps synthesized from OCT alone by a conditional diffusion model match or exceed real OCTA fusion in most settings, raise sensitivity, and transfer better across scanners. A sympathetic reader cares because OCTA hardware is expensive and scarce outside specialist clinics, while standard OCT is far more common; if the claim holds, high-performance multimodal screening becomes possible without extra hardware, especially in primary-care and resource-limited settings where most DR surveillance must occur.

What carries the argument

Bidirectional cross-modal attention network (CRD-Net backbone): independent CNN streams extract features from OCT and enface OCTA, self-attention focuses each stream, then each modality queries the other via scaled dot-product attention before multi-branch classification; the same pipeline accepts either ground-truth or diffusion-translated OCTA.

What would settle it

Train the identical fusion pipeline on a third independent multi-scanner cohort that includes mild DR and measure whether TR-OCTA fusion still matches or exceeds GT-OCTA fusion in recall and cross-dataset AUC; a clear drop for TR relative to GT would falsify the substitutability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Cross-modal attention fusion of OCT B-scans with single-channel enface OCTA consistently and substantially outperforms a strong unimodal OCT baseline for binary DR-versus-normal classification across all five evaluation scenarios, and computationally translated OCTA can substitute for hardware-acquired OCTA while preserving or improving accuracy, sensitivity, and cross-dataset robustness.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that OCT-to-OCTA translation produces genuine, generalizable vascular disease signal rather than dataset-specific texture or denoising patterns that merely inflate metrics.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes bidirectional cross-modal attention fusion (CRD-Net) of OCT B-scans with single-channel enface OCTA for binary DR vs normal classification. Using OCT500 and UIC (730 subjects total), it evaluates five scenarios: within-dataset, combined, and bidirectional cross-dataset tests. A ConvNeXt V2 OCT-only model is the unimodal baseline. In addition to ground-truth (GT) OCTA, the authors substitute translated (TR) OCTA generated from OCT by a conditional diffusion model trained on OCT500. Tables I–III report that fusion consistently outperforms the unimodal baseline; TR OCTA matches or exceeds GT OCTA in most settings and improves recall in the OCT500→UIC direction. The central clinical claim is that attention-based OCT–OCTA enface fusion improves DR detection and that computationally generated OCTA can replace hardware OCTA for screening in resource-limited settings.

Significance. If the directional fusion benefit and the TR-as-surrogate claim hold under scrutiny, the work is clinically relevant: OCTA hardware is expensive and scarce, while standard OCT is widely available. The multi-scenario design (patient-level splits, combined training, bidirectional cross-dataset tests) and bootstrap 95% CIs on fusion metrics are strengths relative to many single-cohort multimodal OCT papers. Using only single-channel enface OCTA also matches a realistic clinical data constraint. The TR pathway, if it truly injects generalizable vascular signal rather than domain-specific texture, would be a practical bridge for high-sensitivity DR screening without OCTA devices. These contributions are incremental but useful for the eess.IV / ophthalmic imaging community.

major comments (4)
  1. Tables II–III and Discussion (TR OCTA paragraphs): The hardware-replacement claim rests on TR OCTA supplying genuine, generalizable vascular disease signal. The translator was trained only on OCT500 (§III.A, ref. [12]). On that same cohort, TR fusion accuracy rises from 0.8788 (GT) to 0.9697 and recall from 0.7143 to 0.9286, under a severe 251:64 Normal:DR imbalance. Discussion attributes this to TR being a “denoised, average-representative” map, but that is equally consistent with re-emitted OCT500-specific texture or label-correlated artifacts that the fusion head can exploit. Cross-dataset results are mixed (TR helps OCT500→UIC recall; UIC→OCT500 accuracy falls to 0.7005). Without an independent check—e.g., vessel-density / FAZ correlation of TR vs GT, ablation of TR quality, or a translator trained off OCT500—the claim that TR can replace hardware OCTA does not follow from the tables
  2. Tables I–III: Specificity equals Recall in essentially every row (e.g., OCT500 unimodal 0.6872/0.6872; GT OCT500 0.7143/0.7143; TR OCT500 0.9286/0.9286; same pattern for UIC and Combined). For binary classification this is only expected under balanced classes or a particular threshold/definition; with the reported 251:64 imbalance it is anomalous and suggests either a reporting error (specificity copied from recall), macro-averaging over classes without stating it, or an unintended operating point. This undermines trust in the metric suite that supports the “consistently outperforms” claim. Please recompute and report standard binary specificity (TN/(TN+FP) for the DR-positive definition) and clarify the positive class and averaging convention.
  3. §III.B / Results: The unimodal baseline is described as “ConvNeXt Large” with ImageNet-1k weights, while the abstract, contributions, and Table I caption say “ConvNeXt V2.” These are different architectures. The baseline must be named and configured consistently; otherwise the fusion gains relative to a “strong unimodal ConvNeXt V2 baseline” cannot be verified. Please also state whether the same backbone family and capacity are used inside CRD-Net’s two streams.
  4. §III.A and Tables I–III: How multiple (~80) fovea-centered OCT B-scans per patient are aggregated into a single patient-level prediction is not specified (slice-wise majority vote, feature pooling, multi-instance head, etc.). Patient-level stratified splits are claimed, but without the aggregation rule the reported accuracies and cross-dataset numbers are not reproducible and the comparison to a single enface OCTA is ambiguous. This is load-bearing for all five scenarios.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical held-out fusion metrics are not forced by construction from self-cited TR OCTA generation or the adopted CRD-Net backbone.

full rationale

This paper is supervised multimodal classification with patient-level held-out, combined, and bidirectional cross-dataset evaluation on OCT500 and UIC. The central claims (fusion beats unimodal ConvNeXt V2; TR OCTA matches or exceeds GT OCTA in most settings) are measured accuracy/AUC/recall numbers on fixed splits, not algebraic identities of fitted parameters. The self-citation to the authors’ diffusion OCT→OCTA translator [12] only supplies the TR enface input modality; it does not define or force the fusion classifier’s test metrics. CRD-Net [38] and ImageNet-pretrained backbones are standard external components, not uniqueness theorems or self-definitional premises. Concerns that TR>GT gains on OCT500 may reflect translator domain leakage or denoising rather than true vascular signal are validity/correctness risks, not circular reductions of prediction to input. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, load-bearing uniqueness import, or renaming of a known result was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Load-bearing content is empirical ML practice plus domain imaging assumptions, not free physical constants. The claim rests on standard deep-learning training choices, the assumption that single enface OCTA (or its diffusion translation) carries complementary DR signal, and the validity of patient-level binary labels across two heterogeneous acquisition protocols. No new physical entities are postulated; the main invented operational entity is the TR OCTA pipeline as a hardware substitute.

free parameters (5)
  • Learning rate and decay schedule (1e-4, decay ×0.1 at epochs 50 and 100)
    Hand-chosen training hyperparameters that affect reported accuracy; not derived from data-generating theory.
  • Training epochs (100), batch size (32), SGD momentum (0.9), weight decay (1e-4)
    Standard but free optimization settings that co-determine the final metrics.
  • Number of OCT B-scans per patient (~80, fovea-centered)
    Selection window for multimodal input; changes the information available to the OCT stream.
  • Train/val/test split ratios (80-10-10 within-dataset; 90-10 for cross-dataset train)
    Partition choices that interact with severe class imbalance and affect reported generalization.
  • Diffusion model parameters for TR OCTA (from prior work, trained on OCT500 only)
    The entire TR modality is produced by a separately fitted generative model; fusion performance with TR inherits those fitted degrees of freedom.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Structural OCT and enface OCTA provide complementary, non-redundant information about DR that intermediate bidirectional cross-attention can exploit better than OCT alone.
    Stated throughout Introduction and Discussion; underpins why fusion should beat the unimodal baseline.
  • domain assumption Patient-level stratified splits prevent leakage and make within- and cross-dataset metrics valid estimates of clinical generalization.
    Materials and Methods §III.A; required for interpreting cross-dataset tables.
  • ad hoc to paper A conditional diffusion model trained on OCT500 produces TR OCTA that is a valid vascular surrogate for fusion, including when tested on UIC.
    Core of the hardware-free claim; translator is OCT500-only per authors, yet used in UIC and cross-dataset settings.
  • domain assumption Binary Normal vs DR labels on the selected OCT500 subset (251 Normal, 64 DR) and UIC (64 Normal, 351 DR) are clinically consistent across devices and demographics.
    Dataset construction §III.A; label and protocol heterogeneity is acknowledged but treated as acceptable for pooled claims.
  • standard math ImageNet-pretrained CNN backbones plus CRD-Net-style multi-head self- and cross-attention are appropriate feature extractors for OCT/OCTA fusion.
    Standard transfer-learning and attention practice; architecture adopted from Liu et al. [38].
invented entities (1)
  • TR OCTA as hardware-free second modality for CRD-Net fusion in DR screening
    purpose: Replace physical OCTA acquisition so multimodal classification can run from OCT scanners alone.
    Operational construct of this paper (built on prior diffusion translation); independent clinical evidence that TR OCTA equals real OCTA for screening decisions is not established outside these experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Modal Fusion of OCT and OCT angiography enface for Improved Diagnostics of Diabetic Retinopathy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXUOSNMQ

@misc{pith2026260703959,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Modal Fusion of OCT and OCT angiography enface for Improved Diagnostics of Diabetic Retinopathy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXUOSNMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.03959}
}
read the original abstract

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision impairment worldwide, highlighting the need for accurate and accessible screening tools. Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) provides high-resolution structural information of the retina, whereas OCT angiography (OCTA) offers complementary vascular information that is highly relevant for DR diagnosis. In this study, we propose a cross-modal fusion of OCT B-scans with single-channel en face OCTA using a bidirectional cross-modal attention network for automated DR classification. Two independent datasets, OCT500 and UIC, comprising 730 subjects in total, were utilized to evaluate performance under within-dataset, combined-dataset, and cross-dataset generalization settings. A ConvNeXt V2 model trained solely on OCT images served as the unimodal baseline. In addition to ground-truth (GT) OCTA, we explored the use of translated (TR) OCTA generated from OCT scans, eliminating the requirement for dedicated OCTA hardware. Experimental results demonstrate that cross-modal fusion consistently outperforms unimodal OCT classification across all evaluation scenarios. Fusion with GT OCTA improved classification accuracy and discriminative performance, while TR OCTA achieved comparable or superior results in most settings. Furthermore, TR OCTA improved sensitivity and cross-dataset generalization, indicating enhanced robustness to domain shifts. These findings demonstrate that attention-based OCT-OCTA en face fusion provides clinically meaningful improvements for DR detection and suggest that computationally generated OCTA can serve as a practical, low-cost alternative to hardware-acquired OCTA, enabling broader deployment of high-performance retinal screening systems in resource-limited clinical environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03959 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. OCT and OCTA enface sample data These cross-dataset experiments probe how well models trained on one imaging environment transfer to an unseen acquisition setting, which is a critical consideration for clinical deployment. B. Model framework To establish a single-modality baseline for comparison against the multi-modal fusion approach, we trained a ConvNeXt Large network [37] independently on OCT B-scan images. The … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-modal Fusion framework module. Within each stream, a multi-head self-attention mechanism is first applied to the feature maps to direct the network’s attention toward disease-relevant spatial regions within that modality. Specifically, each feature map is first projected via a 1×1 convolution, passed through the attention network to produce an intermediate feature and then further refined by a feed forward net… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Diffusion model based OCT to OCTA translation,

    R. H. Badhonet al., “Diffusion model based OCT to OCTA translation,”Frontiers in Medicine, vol. 12, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1655453

    work page doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1655453 2025

  2. [1]

    Optical coherence tomography,

    D. Huanget al., “Optical coherence tomography,”Science, vol. 254, no. 5035, pp. 1178–1181, 1991

    1991

  3. [2]

    Optical coherence tomography—principles and applications,

    A. F. Fercheret al., “Optical coherence tomography—principles and applications,”Rep. Prog. Phys., vol. 66, no. 2, p. 239, 2003

    2003

  4. [3]

    Optical coherence tomography: technology and applications,

    W. Drexler and J. G. Fujimoto, “Optical coherence tomography: technology and applications,”Springer, 2008

    2008

  5. [4]

    Artificial intelligence in retina,

    E. Schmidt-Erfurthet al., “Artificial intelligence in retina,”Prog. Retin. Eye Res., vol. 67, pp. 1–29, 2018

    2018

  6. [5]

    Optical coherence tomography angiography-based capillary velocimetry,

    R. K. Wanget al., “Optical coherence tomography angiography-based capillary velocimetry,”J. Biomed. Opt., vol. 22, no. 6, p. 066008, 2017

    2017

  7. [6]

    Quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography,

    S. S. Gaoet al., “Quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography,”Biomed. Opt. Express, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 323–346, 2016

    2016

  8. [7]

    Optical coherence tomography angiography,

    R. F. Spaideet al., “Optical coherence tomography angiography,”Prog. Retin. Eye Res., vol. 64, pp. 1–55, 2018

    2018

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Quantitative comparisons between optical coherence tomography angiography and matched histology in the human eye,

    L. Anet al., “Quantitative comparisons between optical coherence tomography angiography and matched histology in the human eye,” Exp. Eye Res., vol. 146, pp. 10–17, 2016

    2016

  2. [9]

    Development of a deep learning algorithm for optical coherence tomography angiography in diabetic retinopathy,

    A. R. Ranet al., “Development of a deep learning algorithm for optical coherence tomography angiography in diabetic retinopathy,” Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol., vol. 257, pp. 1353–1361, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Deep learning for detecting retinal detachment and discerning macular status using ultra-widefield fundus images,

    Z. Liet al., “Deep learning for detecting retinal detachment and discerning macular status using ultra-widefield fundus images,”Commun. Biol., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 15, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    Fully automated detection of diabetic macular edema and dry age-related macular degeneration from optical coherence tomography images,

    P. P. Srinivasanet al., “Fully automated detection of diabetic macular edema and dry age-related macular degeneration from optical coherence tomography images,”Biomed. Opt. Express, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 3568–3577, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Multimodal deep learning for macular disease detection,

    Q. Zhanget al., “Multimodal deep learning for macular disease detection,”IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 4093–4104, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Joint classification and segmentation of diabetic retinopathy using deep learning,

    Y . Zhouet al., “Joint classification and segmentation of diabetic retinopathy using deep learning,”IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform., vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 2671–2679, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Cross-modal learning for multi-modal medical image analysis,

    J. Wuet al., “Cross-modal learning for multi-modal medical image analysis,”Med. Image Anal., vol. 78, p. 102394, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A review of deep learning-based information fusion techniques for multimodal medical image classification,

    Y . Liet al., “A review of deep learning-based information fusion techniques for multimodal medical image classification,”Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 177, p. 108635, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    A review on multimodal medical image fusion: Compendious analysis of medical modalities, multimodal databases, fusion techniques and quality metrics,

    M. A. Azamet al., “A review on multimodal medical image fusion: Compendious analysis of medical modalities, multimodal databases, fusion techniques and quality metrics,”Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 144, p. 105253, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Recent advancements in multimodal medical image fusion techniques for better diagnosis: an overview,

    M. Haribabu, V . Guruviah, and P. Yogarajah, “Recent advancements in multimodal medical image fusion techniques for better diagnosis: an overview,”Curr. Med. Imaging, vol. 19, pp. 673–694, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    A review of the application of multi-modal deep learning in medicine: bibliometrics and future directions,

    X. Peiet al., “A review of the application of multi-modal deep learning in medicine: bibliometrics and future directions,”Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., vol. 16, p. 44, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Optimizing the OCTA layer fusion option for deep learning classification of diabetic retinopathy,

    G. Ryuet al., “Optimizing the OCTA layer fusion option for deep learning classification of diabetic retinopathy,”Biomed. Opt. Express, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 4706–4722, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Multi-modal retinal image classification with modality-specific attention network,

    X. Heet al., “Multi-modal retinal image classification with modality-specific attention network,”IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1591–1602, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Ensemble deep learning for diabetic retinopathy detection using optical coherence tomography angiography,

    M. Heisleret al., “Ensemble deep learning for diabetic retinopathy detection using optical coherence tomography angiography,”Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol., vol. 9, no. 2, p. 20, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    A comprehensive review of multimodal deep learning for enhanced medical diagnostics,

    Y . Huanget al., “A comprehensive review of multimodal deep learning for enhanced medical diagnostics,”Clin. eHealth, 2025, in press

    2025

  16. [24]

    CMAF-Net: a cross-modal attention fusion-based deep neural network for incomplete multi-modal brain tumor segmentation,

    K. Sunet al., “CMAF-Net: a cross-modal attention fusion-based deep neural network for incomplete multi-modal brain tumor segmentation,”Quant. Imaging Med. Surg., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 4579–4604, 2024. 15

    2024

  17. [25]

    CrossFuse: A novel cross attention mechanism based infrared and visible image fusion approach,

    H. Li and X.-J. Wu, “CrossFuse: A novel cross attention mechanism based infrared and visible image fusion approach,”Inf. Fusion, vol. 103, p. 102147, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    TransMEF: A transformer-based multi-exposure image fusion framework using self-supervised multi-task learning,

    L. Quet al., “TransMEF: A transformer-based multi-exposure image fusion framework using self-supervised multi-task learning,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., vol. 36, 2022, pp. 2126–2134

    2022

  19. [27]

    MATR: Multimodal medical image fusion via multiscale adaptive transformer,

    W. Tanget al., “MATR: Multimodal medical image fusion via multiscale adaptive transformer,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 31, pp. 5134–5149, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    MACTFusion: Lightweight cross transformer for adaptive multimodal medical image fusion,

    Z. Wanget al., “MACTFusion: Lightweight cross transformer for adaptive multimodal medical image fusion,”J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 36, no. 4, p. 102039, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    A novel multimodel medical image fusion framework with edge enhancement and cross-scale transformer,

    X. Yanget al., “A novel multimodel medical image fusion framework with edge enhancement and cross-scale transformer,”Sci. Rep., vol. 15, p. 6245, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    A multimodal vision transformer for interpretable fusion of functional and structural neuroimaging data,

    Y . Liuet al., “A multimodal vision transformer for interpretable fusion of functional and structural neuroimaging data,”Hum. Brain Mapp., vol. 45, p. e26850, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    A V-Net: deep learning for fully automated artery-vein classification in optical coherence tomography angiography,

    M. Alamet al., “A V-Net: deep learning for fully automated artery-vein classification in optical coherence tomography angiography,” Biomed. Opt. Express, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 5249–5257, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    MF-A V-Net: an open-source deep learning network with multimodal fusion options for artery-vein segmentation in OCT angiography,

    M. Abtahiet al., “MF-A V-Net: an open-source deep learning network with multimodal fusion options for artery-vein segmentation in OCT angiography,”Biomed. Opt. Express, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 4870–4888, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Hybrid fusion of high-resolution and ultra-widefield OCTA acquisitions for the automatic diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy,

    Y . Liuet al., “Hybrid fusion of high-resolution and ultra-widefield OCTA acquisitions for the automatic diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy,” Diagnostics, vol. 13, p. 2881, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Multi-modal classification of retinal disease based on convolutional neural network,

    H. Panet al., “Multi-modal classification of retinal disease based on convolutional neural network,”Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express, vol. 11, no. 4, 2025, doi: 10.1088/2057-1976/adeb92

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    MultiEYE: Dataset and benchmark for OCT-enhanced retinal disease recognition from fundus images,

    Z. Liuet al., “MultiEYE: Dataset and benchmark for OCT-enhanced retinal disease recognition from fundus images,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09402, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    OCTA-500: A retinal dataset for optical coherence tomography angiography study,

    M. Liet al., “OCTA-500: A retinal dataset for optical coherence tomography angiography study,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 93, p. 103092, 2024. :contentReference[oaicite:0]index=0

    2024

  29. [37]

    ConvNeXt V2: Co-designing and Scaling ConvNets with Masked Autoencoders,

    S. Wooet al., “ConvNeXt V2: Co-designing and Scaling ConvNets with Masked Autoencoders,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00808, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cross-modal attention network for retinal disease classification based on multi-modal images,

    Z. Liuet al., “Cross-modal attention network for retinal disease classification based on multi-modal images,”Biomedical Optics Express, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3699–3714, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.