Development and multicenter validation of an AI driven model for quantitative meibomian gland evaluation

Abstract

This multicenter retrospective study developed and validated an AI driven model for automated segmentation and quantitative evaluation of meibomian glands using infrared meibography images acquired by the Keratograph 5M device. A total of 1350 infrared meibography images were collected and annotated for model training and validation. The model demonstrated high segmentation performance, with an Intersection over Union of 81.67% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 81.03–82.31) and accuracy of 97.49% (95% CI: 97.38–97.62), outperforming conventional algorithms. The agreement was observed between AI-based and manual gland grading (Kappa = 0.93) and gland counting (Spearman r = 0.9334). Repeatability analysis confirmed the model’s stability, and external validation across four independent centers yielded consistent results with AUCs exceeding 0.99. This AI tool offers a standardized, efficient, and objective method for meibography image analysis, which may improve diagnostic precision and assist in the clinical management of meibomian gland dysfunction across diverse populations.

Introduction

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disorder of the tear film, often resulting from tear deficiency or excessive tear evaporation, leading to damage to the interpalpebral ocular surface and associated with symptoms of ocular discomfort¹. Over the past few decades, DED has become a significant driver of ophthalmology clinic visits, with an estimated global prevalence affecting one in every eleven people^2–4. Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), the most common cause of DED, leads to instability of the tear film’s lipid layer, contributing to excessive tear evaporation⁵. The introduction of meibography has enabled the visualization of meibomian gland morphology, which has become a critical tool for diagnosing DED⁶. However, traditional methods of evaluating meibomian gland morphology rely on subjective interpretations by clinicians, leading to variability, operational complexity, and time inefficiency.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly transformed ophthalmic imaging and diagnostic practices, offering the potential to enhance clinical accuracy and efficiency. In the management of diseases such as diabetic retinopathy, retinopathy of prematurity, cataracts, glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration, AI has demonstrated outstanding capabilities in risk assessment and disease progression prediction^7,8. In the field of dry eye disease, AI-assisted Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) imaging enables the automated measurement of tear film characteristics, including tear meniscus area, height, depth, and radius⁹. Slit-lamp imaging allows for reliable grading of corneal punctate epithelial erosions¹⁰ and interferometry images facilitate highly accurate classification of the tear film lipid layer with AI integration¹¹. Numerous algorithms based on computer vision^12–14, supervised learning^15–17, unsupervised learning^18,19, and Vision Transformer (ViT)²⁰ have been developed for meibomian gland evaluation, providing significant clinical benefits by automating and standardizing the diagnostic process. Additionally, several studies^13,21,22 have developed deep learning-based automated methods for glands segmentation and multiparameter quantitative analyzers, enabling quantitative assessment. These AI-driven approaches improve diagnostic consistency, reduce subjectivity, and enable earlier and more accurate detection of MGD, leading to better monitoring of disease progression. For example, recent studies have utilized these AI techniques to explore risk factors for MGD, providing a quantitative assessment of the effects of allergic conjunctivitis²³, orthokeratology lens wear²², and smoking and alcohol consumption on meibomian gland morphology²⁴. These findings offer new insights for clinical diagnosis and management.

Given the high accuracy demands of meibomian gland evaluation, it is crucial to rigorously validate these AI models and assess their reliability across diverse clinical environments. This includes comparing AI model performance with manual annotations, evaluating repeatability, and performing external validation to confirm robustness. We herein present the development and multicenter validation of an AI-driven model for quantitative meibomian gland assessment. The proposed AI-driven model addresses critical limitations in current diagnostic approaches through comprehensive, quantitative morphological analysis. Our rigorous validation framework, encompassing repeatability assessments, correlation analysis with manual annotations, and multicenter external validation, establishes the model’s capacity to deliver objective, reproducible metrics with demonstrated generalizability and reliability. Our study specifically focused on the upper eyelid, which demonstrates higher meibomian gland density and exerts greater influence on tear film stability compared to the lower eyelid^25,26. This anatomical selection is further justified by the upper eyelid’s suitability for standardized imaging, in contrast to the lower eyelid’s frequent challenges in achieving complete gland visualization during clinical examinations²⁷. These advancements significantly contribute to ocular surface health management by enabling standardized evaluation protocols, enhancing diagnostic precision, and supporting personalized therapeutic strategies for MGD, thereby representing a substantial innovation in ophthalmic diagnostic technologies.

Results

Study images

A total of 881 infrared meibomian gland images were included in the internal validation phase of the study after undergoing preprocessing.

For the multicenter external validation, datasets were collected from four independent ophthalmology centers (Supplementary Table 1): Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center (124 images), Putian Ophthalmic Hospital (109 images), Dongguan Huaxia Eye Hospital (100 images), and Zhuzhou City Hospital in Hunan (136 images). These 469 external images were similarly processed for quality control and used to evaluate the model’s generalizability across different clinical environments.

Annotator agreement and reliability

To validate manual annotations, we compared annotations from three junior physicians and one senior ophthalmologist. Pearson correlation coefficients for gland and eyelid area pixel values exceeded 0.85 between junior and senior annotators (Supplementary Fig. 1a), with intra-annotator correlations also above 0.85. For eyelid area annotations, inter-annotator correlations were consistently above 0.90 (Supplementary Fig. 1b). The IoU for gland regions between junior and senior annotators was >91.57% (Supplementary Fig. 2).

AI model performance

The performance of the AI-driven segmentation model (UNet) was compared with several other state-of-the-art medical image segmentation models. The UNet model achieved an IoU of 81.67%, outperforming other models such as UNet++ (78.85%) and U²Net (79.69%). Key performance metrics are summarized in Table 1, showing the UNet model’s Dice coefficient at 89.72, recall at 90.48, and overall accuracy at 97.49%, reflecting its superior segmentation capability.

Table 1.

A summary of the model comparisons

Algorithms	IoU/% (95% CI)	Dice (95% CI)	Recall (95% CI)	ACC (95% CI)
UNet42	81.67 (81.03–82.31)	89.72 (89.30–90.14)	90.48 (98.34–98.57)	97.49 (97.38–97.62)
Unet++43	78.85 (76.83–80.87)	87.9 (86.59–89.21)	88.27 (85.76–90.78)	97.38 (97.05–97.71)
Unet3+33	75.39 (73.25–77.53)	85.55 (84.08–87.02)	86.02 (83.84–88.20)	96.9 (96.57–97.23)
U2Net44	79.69 (78.97–80.41)	88.48 (88.02–88.94)	88.68 (87.91–89.46)	97.21 (97.07–97.35)
AttentionUnet45	79.64 (78.08–81.22)	88.4 (87.30–89.50)	89.4 (86.05–92.75)	97.47 (97.16–97.78)
HRnet46	79.24 (77.34–81.14)	88.16 (86.89–89.43)	88.63 (87.45–89.81)	97.43 (97.08–97.78)
DenseUNet47	79.61 (78.32–80.90)	88.39 (87.39–89.39)	88.51 (87.40–89.62)	97.49 (97.25–97.71)
Swim-Unet48	39.5 (36.02–42.98)	55.87 (52.24–59.51)	85.79 (82.74–88.84)	83.73 (82.74–88.84)
CE-net49	80.96 (80.19–81.73)	89.3 (88.88–89.72)	89.23 (88.21–90.25)	97.4 (97.28–97.52)
MNet50	37.80 (37.34–42.27)	56.4 (53.96–59.03)	67.2 (59.99–74.58)	87.0 (86.48–87.68)
U-net333	80.88 (80.13–81.64)	89.22 (88.74–89.70)	89.75 (88.26–91.24)	97.39 (97.29–97.48)

Repeatability of the AI model

The repeatability of the AI model was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots for 28 pairs of repeated images. The model showed excellent repeatability in gland length and count measurements, with most data points within the 95% limits of agreement and mean differences near zero (Supplementary Fig. 3a, b). Minor variability was observed in gland width and area measurements, but results remained within acceptable limits, confirming the model’s reliability for repeated clinical use (Supplementary Fig. 3c, d).

Comparison between AI and manual evaluation

The distribution of grades assigned by different graders and the AI Was illustrated in Fig. 1a. The AI-based grading system achieved 94.09% accuracy and a Kappa value of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95) compared to manual grading (Fig. 1c). Gland counts from annotators and the AI are shown in Fig. 1b. Given the non-normal distribution of gland counts, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to evaluate consistency, revealing a strong correlation of 0.9334 between AI and manual counts (Fig. 1d).

Fig. 1. Comparison of MGs grades between automated and manual annotations.

a Overview of grading for all MG images. b Overview of counting for all MG images. c Correlation between manual and auto counts. d Confusion matrices for manual and auto grades.

External validation performance

The model exhibited robust performance across four independent centers, with AUC values of 0.9931 (Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center), 0.9921 (Dongguan Huaxia Eye Hospital), 0.9950 (Zhuzhou City Hospital), and 0.9940 (Putian Ophthalmic Hospital) (Fig. 2a–d). Decision curve analysis (DCA) confirmed a positive net benefit across a wide range of threshold probabilities, highlighting the model’s clinical utility (Fig. 2e–h). The model achieved high accuracy (97.83–98.36%), sensitivity (99.04–99.47%), and specificity (88.16–90.28%), with IOU values ranging from 97.4% to 98.1%. Additional metrics included positive predictive values (98.25–98.69%), negative predictive values (93.07–96.23%), positive likelihood ratios (8.3820–10.2307), negative likelihood ratios (0.0060–0.0108), and F1 scores (0.9100–0.9316) (Supplementary Table 2).

Fig. 2. Performance evaluation of the intelligent algorithm in external validation.

a ROC curve for Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center. b ROC curve for Dongguan Huaxia Eye Hospital. c ROC curve for Zhuzhou City Hospital. d ROC curve for Putian Ophthalmic Hospital. e DCA for Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center. f DCA for Dongguan Huaxia Eye Hospital. g DCA for Zhuzhou City Hospital. h DCA for Putian Ophthalmic Hospital.

Consistency between manual and automated assessments in multicenter validation

External validation demonstrated strong agreement between manual and automated assessments for MG grading and counting. At Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, automated scoring achieved 91.93% accuracy, with a Kappa value of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70–0.93) and Spearman’s ρ of 0.8524 for gland counts (Fig. 3a, e). Similar performance was observed at Dongguan Huaxia Eye Hospital (accuracy: 94.00%; Kappa: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.83–0.99; Spearman’s ρ: 0.9736) (Fig. 3b, f), Putian Ophthalmic Hospital (accuracy: 94.49%; Kappa: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.91–0.99; Spearman’s ρ: 0.9518) (Fig. 3c, g), and Zhuzhou City Hospital (accuracy: 93.39%; Kappa: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85–0.96; Spearman’s ρ: 0.9206) (Fig. 3d, h).

Fig. 3. Correlation and consistency analysis between manual and automated gland counts and grades across different research centers.

a, e Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center. b, f Dongguan Huaxia Eye Hospital. c, g Putian Ophthalmic Hospital. d, h Zhuzhou City Hospital.

Discussion

With the rapid advancement of AI, the diagnosis and management of DED have significantly improved. It can automatically identify tear film breakup regions, enabling more precise measurement of TBUT²⁸ and can also objectively quantify lipid layer thickness and assess tear film stability through interference pattern analysis²⁹. AI-driven analysis of OCT images allows for automated measurement of tear meniscus height, detection of corneal thickness changes, and classification of DED severity²⁹. Furthermore, AI integrates various non-invasive clinical indicators to predict tear osmolarity without the need for invasive sampling, enhancing both patient comfort and diagnostic efficiency³⁰. Similarly, AI-driven algorithms have emerged in the diagnosis of MGD³¹. Meibography has become a valuable tool for the clinical screening and diagnosis of MGD. Previous studies have made significant efforts in developing rapid and automated identification methods for meibography images^32,33, achieving promising results in terms of algorithm innovation, model accuracy, and parameter diversity. However, these studies have some shortcomings in clinical validation. For example, many studies have not adequately validated the consistency among different annotators, which may lead to biases during model training and testing^24,34. Some studies rely on narrow populations or small sample sizes, which may not adequately represent broader populations^32,35. The innovation of our research lies in the comprehensive validation process, which included two stages of internal validation and extensive multicenter external validation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multicenter clinical validation study of an AI model for automated segmentation of meibomian glands.

Our findings clearly demonstrate the efficacy and reliability of the AI-based model. First, newly trained annotators achieved high consistency compared with expert annotations, underscoring the robustness of the annotation process. This result is crucial, as it ensures the reliability of large-scale data annotation, particularly during the training and validation phases of AI models. The high Pearson correlation coefficients between junior and senior doctors, as well as among junior doctors, demonstrate that the quality of annotations is both reproducible and scalable. Wang et al.³⁶ similarly emphasized the value of newly trained annotators in improving annotation efficiency and accuracy. Some previous studies have not examined the qualifications and consistency of annotators, which may introduce bias into model training and evaluation^37,38. This may limit the reproducibility of AI models across different clinical settings.

Another critical finding is the model’s strong performance in segmentation tasks. The UNet-based algorithm achieved an accuracy of 97.49%, an IoU of 81.67%, and a Dice coefficient of 89.72%, significantly outperforming other algorithms reported in prior studies. For instance, the models developed by Zhang et al.³⁴, Wang et al.³⁹, and Steven et al.¹⁷ reported lower accuracies (ranging from 62.7% to 92%) and limited generalizability across diverse datasets. Unlike these models, which often require extensive manual preprocessing or are tailored to specific imaging conditions, our algorithm demonstrates robust performance across a wide range of image qualities and clinical settings. This adaptability, combined with its high accuracy, suggests that our model could be effectively integrated into clinical workflows, particularly in complex cases where manual evaluation might be error-prone or inconsistent. Furthermore, while previous studies primarily focused on global gland analysis, our model’s ability to perform detailed, gland-level segmentation provides a more granular assessment, addressing a key limitation of earlier approaches.

For the model’s repeatability evaluation, we employed Bland-Altman analysis on repeated images. The results showed that the AI model demonstrated good repeatability in measuring meibomian gland length and count, with most data points falling within the 95% limits of agreement and an average difference close to zero. Although slight variability was observed in the measurements of gland width and area, the majority of results remained within an acceptable range. This level of repeatability is consistent with prior findings in AI-based meibomian gland segmentation, such as those by Shehzad et al.⁴⁰, who highlighted the importance of robust and reproducible AI-driven morphometric analyses. Notably, Saha et al.²¹ also reported the reliability of their model in repeated measurements of meibomian gland area. However, the repeatability assessment of gland length, width, and count has been rarely reported in previous studies. This finding further validates the effectiveness of our model and underscores its potential and importance for application in clinical settings.

In addition, this study compared the performance of the AI-driven evaluation with manual assessments in meibomian gland counting and grading. The AI model demonstrated a strong correlation with manual counts (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.9334), indicating higher consistency than manual counting methods that are subject to human error and variability. For manual grading, the AI achieved an accuracy of 95.37%, suggesting it can reliably replicate clinician assessments. Notably, our AI model outperformed previous systems like Saha et al.‘s deep learning model, which achieved only 59.17% accuracy²¹. This implies that the AI system can enhance clinical efficiency, reduce variability.

A key strength of this study is the multicenter external validation, which ensures the model’s generalizability across diverse clinical settings. Validation using datasets from four independent centers demonstrated that the AI model maintained robust performance, with accuracy values exceeding 0.97 across all sites. The model consistently achieved high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, further supported by decision curve analysis, which confirmed its positive net benefit across a wide range of threshold probabilities. Additionally, strong agreement between manual and automated meibomian gland grading and counting was observed at all centers, with high Kappa values (0.81–0.95) and Spearman’s correlation coefficients (>0.85), reinforcing the model’s reliability. These findings highlight the model’s robustness and suitability for real-world clinical applications, underscoring its potential for widespread adoption in diverse clinical environments.

The proposed AI model demonstrates significant clinical advantages over existing methods and tranditional commercial tools. Firstly, it provides objective quantification of meibomian gland morphology, overcoming the inherent limitations of subjective manual assessments. Secondly, through multiparametric analysis of glandular characteristics (including area, density, and tortuosity), it enables precise monitoring of disease progression and therapeutic responses. Thirdly, the multicenter-validated architecture ensures robust performance across diverse clinical settings, facilitating standardized evaluation and personalized treatment planning based on quantifiable morphological changes, thereby potentially improving clinical outcomes.

Despite the promising results, this study is not without limitations. First, a limitation of the model is its inability to track changes in individual meibomian glands over time. This impacts clinical applications, particularly in assessing treatment efficacy. Without automated tracking, clinicians need to manually ensure consistent imaging angles and regions for pre- and post-treatment comparisons. Deviations in eyelid positioning or camera angle may introduce variability, complicating accurate comparisons of gland morphology. Future development of gland tracking capabilities is essential to enable reliable, automated longitudinal analysis in clinical practice. Second, all images used in this study were obtained from the Keratograph 5 M device. While this ensured data consistency and leveraged a device widely used in clinical practice, our model has not yet been validated on other imaging systems (e.g. LipiView (TearScience, Inc.) and IDRA (SBM Sistemi)). Future studies should assess its performance across different platforms to confirm its broader applicability. Third, due to the incomplete exposure of lower eyelid glands and poor imaging quality, this study did not include the analysis of lower meibomian glands. Future studies should focus on validating the AI model’s performance in assessing lower eyelid morphology to further enhance its clinical applicability.

This study developed and validated a robust AI-driven model for standardized meibography assessment across multicenter clinical settings. The proposed model reduces subjectivity in manual evaluations through automated quantification of glandular morphology, establishes consistent diagnostic criteria via multiparametric analysis, and provides a scalable clinical tool validated across diverse healthcare environments. These advancements address the critical need for objective, reproducible evaluation in MGD management. Future research should explore longitudinal outcome correlations, cross-platform validation, and the integration of lower eyelid meibography to enhance clinical utility.

Methods

Study design and internal dataset

This multicenter, retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted to evaluate the performance of an AI-driven model for meibography images evaluation. The study was conducted at Fujian Provincial Hospital, where meibography images were collected from patients who underwent Keratograph 5 M (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) examinations between June 2022 and April 2024. The initial dataset consisted of 1280 images from 646 patients. Enhanced contrast mode was used during image acquisition to highlight gland structures, and images were captured in RGB format with a resolution of 1578 × 966 pixels. The Keratograph 5 M device was selected for this study due to its standardized imaging protocol and widespread clinical adoption in blepharoplasty infrared photography. While the current implementation is specific to this device, the image processing pipeline was designed with cross-platform adaptability in mind, allowing for potential extension to other imaging systems with similar output characteristics.

To ensure uniformity, only upper eyelid images that fully captured the eyelid area were selected. During preprocessing, images were excluded if they exhibited significant blurriness, extensive eyelash obstruction (>20% gland area obscured), severe glare or reflection, or incomplete eyelid region capture, as these issues impeded accurate gland boundary identification or segmentation.

This study is a single-sample diagnostic trial. Based on previous research, the expected sensitivity was 70%, and specificity was 80%, with an allowable error of 0.1 for both. A two-sided test was required, with α set at 0.05 and power (1-β) at 90%. Using PASS 15 software, the calculated sample size was N = 241, indicating that at least 241 subjects were needed for the study. After manual quality checks, 881 images from 497 patients were retained. The final dataset was deemed sufficiently large to maintain a margin of error of approximately ±3% and ensure an appropriate level of statistical robustness. The study protocol received central ethical approval from the Fujian Provincial Hospital Research Ethics Committee (Ref: K2024-02-001), which was recognized by all participating centers. All procedures complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and local regulatory requirements. As this was a retrospective study, the requirement for informed consent was waived by the ethics committee. Additionally, we ensured that all shared data were fully de-identified and cannot be traced back to individual patients, thereby maintaining confidentiality.

Manual annotation of meibomian glands and eyelid regions

Manual annotations of meibomian glands and eyelid regions were performed to validate the AI model. Before annotation, four ophthalmologists (three junior, one senior) underwent standardized training on the LABEL ME tool and annotation guidelines to ensure consistency. They independently annotated a randomly selected subset of 25 images (including 5 duplicates) of meibomian glands and eyelid regions. The annotations from the three junior ophthalmologists were compared against those of the senior ophthalmologist, whose annotations served as the gold standard. Inter-annotator agreement was assessed using a Pearson correlation coefficient (>0.85) and Intersection over Union (IoU >90%). Annotators meeting these criteria qualified to label the full dataset. Using the LABEL ME tool, qualified annotators independently labeled 1350 images (internal and external datasets) based on standardized criteria, ensuring high repeatability and accuracy.

Manual MGs grading and gland quantity assessment

Three junior ophthalmologists assessed the quantity and grading of meibomian glands using infrared images. Gland counting was conducted sequentially from left to right, including atrophic glands as long as they were visible. Gland grading followed the criteria proposed by Pflugfelder et al.⁴¹, where gland dropout was classified into four grades: Grade 0 (no gland dropout), Grade 1 (<33% dropout), Grade 2 (33–66% dropout), and Grade 3 (>66% dropout). These manual assessments were used for comparison with the AI-driven model’s output.

AI model development and training

In this study, we used U-Net as the segmentation model for infrared meibomian gland images due to its effectiveness and versatility in medical image segmentation. The detailed network architecture is fully illustrated in Fig. 4. U-Net is a symmetric encoder-decoder architecture with a bottleneck layer in the middle. For meibography segmentation, U-Net progressively extracts features through convolution and pooling in the encoder while reducing spatial resolution. The bottleneck layer captures abstract information, which the decoder then reconstructs using upsampling and skip connections. Convolutional layers fuse multi-scale features, integrating global and local information for precise segmentation. To address gradient smoothness and class imbalance, a hybrid loss function is applied to optimize the model.

Fig. 4. Network architecture of the proposed U-Net.

Include an encoder, a bottleneck layer, and a decoder. Conv denotes a convolutional layer, while BN indicates batch normalization. The sizes of feature maps of each layer are shown around each box.

In the experiment, the 1130 annotated image sets were divided into training, validation, and test sets, along with their corresponding ground truth. The training set is used to tune the model weights, the validation set is used to evaluate the model’s performance during training, and the test set is used to assess the performance of the trained model. During the training process, we use 11 data augmentation techniques, including cropping, flipping, cutting, translation, rotation, equalization, contrast variation, and brightness variation, for online data augmentation to overcome the problem of insufficient training samples. The batch size is set to 8 and the number of epochs to 500. The AI model is optimized using the Adam optimizer with an initial learning rate of 0.0003. To prevent overfitting, the learning rate is halved every 50 epochs. We implement the experiment in Python using the PyTorch framework and all AI models are trained and tested on a single NVIDIA GeForce GTX 3090Ti GPU.

Multicenter dataset and external validation

To validate the generalizability of the model, an external validation dataset of 469 infrared meibomian gland images were collected using the Keratograph 5M device from four independent centers: Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center in Guangdong (124 images), Putian Ophthalmic Hospital in Fujian (109 images), Dongguan Huaxia Eye Hospital in Guangdong (100 images), and Zhuzhou City Hospital in Hunan (136 images). The multicenter population geographic distribution is shown in Supplementary Fig. 4. Experienced ophthalmologists manually annotated these images for gland counting and grading, serving as the reference standard.

Model evaluation metrics

The AI-driven model quantitatively evaluates several key parameters of meibomian glands, including gland count, gland dropout grading, gland width, gland length, gland area, gland deformation coefficient, and gland loss ratio. These parameters provide a comprehensive assessment of meibomian gland morphology and are critical for evaluating the severity of MGD. The detailed information on these parameters can be found in our previous studies²².

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.1. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-annotator agreement, and scatter plots from linear regression along with confusion matrices were used to compare the AI model’s results with manual annotations for gland counting and grading. IoU scores were employed to evaluate segmentation accuracy. Bland-Altman analysis was applied to assess the repeatability of both manual and AI-based evaluations for gland counting and grading. For key quantitative parameters, descriptive analyses were performed. For external validation, the model’s segmentation performance was assessed using metrics such as Accuracy, Intersection over Union(IoU), Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value, Positive Likelihood Ratio, Negative Likelihood Ratio, F1 Score, along with ROC and DCA curves. To evaluate the consistency between AI and manual assessments of gland quantity and grading across multiple clinical settings, scatter plots from linear regression analyses and confusion matrices were utilized.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: L.L., Y.X., M.H. and Z.Z.; Methodology: L.L., Z.Z., J.L.; Data acquisition: K.X., X.Z., L.Y.L., H.H., L.L.I.U., W.L. and L.L.; Manual segmentation: T.L., K.X., W.L. and L.L.; Data validation: L.L., K.L., T.L., Y.W.; Statistical analysis: K.X., X.S. and L.L.; Draft of the manuscript: K.X., L.L.; Revision of the manuscript: Y.W., J.L., Z.G., L.Y.L., M.H., Y.X. and Z.Z.; Supervision: L.Y.L., Z.G., M.H., Z.Z.; Funding acquisition: L.L., Y.X. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to ethics regulations. However, data access requests for future research will be considered by the corresponding author on a case-by-case basis and subject to relevant institutional and ethical approvals.

Code availability

Access to the code used in this study is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41746-025-01753-5.