Research Appraisalobservational

Use of Deep Learning Models in the Diagnosis of Proptosis Through Orbital Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical researchKesimal, Uğur, Akkaya, Habip Eser, Polat, Önder et al.18 Apr 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

55CEBM
Evidence: Weakobservational

PICO Framework

P — Population521 participants (261 with proptosis, 260 controls) undergoing orbital MRI examination
I — InterventionDeep learning models (DenseNet121, DenseNet169, DenseNet264, ResNet50) applied to 3D orbital MRI data
C — ComparatorManual radiological measurements and traditional diagnostic methods (Hertel exophthalmometer)
O — OutcomesDiagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for proptosis detection

Bottom Line

This retrospective study demonstrates promising diagnostic performance of deep learning models for automated proptosis detection on orbital MRI, with DenseNet121 achieving 95% accuracy and 0.986 AUC. However, significant methodological limitations undermine confidence in these results. The single-center design, lack of external validation, absence of confidence intervals, and insufficient technical detail limit reproducibility and generalizability. Most critically, no comparison with human radiologist performance is provided, making clinical utility unclear. While the concept of automated proptosis detection is valuable given current diagnostic limitations, this study represents early-stage research requiring substantial validation before clinical implementation. Australian clinicians should await multi-center validation studies with appropriate statistical reporting and head-to-head comparisons with current diagnostic standards before considering adoption.

Evidence: Weak

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not reported

  • Effect Size: DenseNet121 achieved 95.0% accuracy

  • Primary Outcome: Diagnostic accuracy for proptosis detection using deep learning models

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Sensitivity 92.7%, Specificity 96.9%, AUC 0.986

  • Confidence Interval: Not reported

Clinical Application

Requires specialized MRI protocols and computational infrastructure; implementation challenges in routine practice Would need TGA approval as diagnostic software; integration with existing radiology workflows; cost-effectiveness assessment required for PBS consideration Patients requiring orbital imaging assessment for suspected proptosis

Abstract

BACKGROUND Proptosis is a common manifestation of orbital disease; however, current diagnostic tools, such as the Hertel exophthalmometer and manual radiological measurements, have limited reproducibility and are observer-dependent. More objective, automated approaches are needed. In this single-center retrospective study, orbital magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations from 521 participants (261 with proptosis, 260 controls) were analyzed. Proptosis was defined on MRI using interzygomatic line-based distance criteria. Three-dimensional convolutional neural network models based on DenseNet121, DenseNet169, DenseNet264, and ResNet50 architectures were trained on volumetric orbital MRI data. MATERIAL AND METHODS Data were divided into training, validation, and test sets, and 5-fold cross-validation with early stopping was used to optimize and validate model performance. Diagnostic performance was assessed using accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS DenseNet121 achieved the best overall performance, with mean accuracy of 95.0%, AUC of 0.986, sensitivity of 92.7%, and specificity of 96.9% across 5-fold cross-validation. CONCLUSIONS To the best of our knowledge, prior artificial intelligence studies in orbital imaging have primarily focused on CT-based measurements, radiomics approaches, or thyroid-associated orbitopathy assessment rather than end-to-end 3-dimensional deep learning analysis of orbital MRI volumes. In this context, the present study explores a volumetric MRI-based deep learning framework for automated proptosis detection, emphasizing patient-level classification and explainable model interpretation.

Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service