The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Epiretinal Membrane Care: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Topic: In ophthalmology, artificial intelligence (AI) demonstrates potential in using ophthalmic imaging across diverse diseases, often matching ophthalmologists' performance. However, the range of machine learning models for epiretinal membrane (ERM) management, which differ in methodology, application, and performance, remains largely unsynthesized. Clinical Relevance: Epiretinal membrane management relies on clinical evaluation and imaging, with surgical intervention considered in cases of significant impairment. AI analysis of ophthalmic images and clinical features could enhance ERM detection, characterization, and prognostication, potentially improving clinical decision-making. This scoping review aims to evaluate the methodologies, applications, and reported performance of AI models in ERM diagnosis, characterization, and prognostication. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across 5 electronic databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to November 14, 2024. Studies pertaining to AI algorithms in the context of ERM were included. The primary outcomes measured will be the reported design, application in ERM management, and performance of each AI model. Results: Three hundred ninety articles were retrieved, with 33 studies meeting inclusion criteria. There were 30 studies (91%) reporting their training and validation methods. Altogether, 61 distinct AI models were included. OCT scans and fundus photographs were used in 26 (79%) and 7 (21%) papers, respectively. Supervised learning and both supervised and unsupervised learning were used in 32 (97%) and 1 (3%) studies, respectively. Twenty-seven studies (82%) developed or adapted AI models using images, whereas 5 (15%) had models using both images and clinical features, and 1 (3%) used preoperative and postoperative clinical features without ophthalmic images. Study objectives were categorized into 3 stages of ERM care. Twenty-three studies (70%) implemented AI for diagnosis (stage 1), 1 (3%) identified ERM characteristics (stage 2), and 6 (18%) predicted vision impairment after diagnosis or postoperative vision outcomes (stage 3). No articles studied treatment planning. Three studies (9%) used AI in stages 1 and 2. Of the 16 studies comparing AI performance to human graders (i.e., retinal specialists, general ophthalmologists, and trainees), 10 (63%) reported equivalent or higher performance. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence-driven assessments of ophthalmic images and clinical features demonstrated high performance in detecting ERM, identifying its morphological properties, and predicting visual outcomes following ERM surgery. Future research might consider the validation of algorithms for clinical applications in personal treatment plan development, ideally to identify patients who might benefit most from surgery. Financial Disclosures: The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».