MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285391305 · doi:10.1186/s41512-022-00127-9

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for grading of ophthalmology imaging modalities

2022· review· en· W4285391305 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Cao, Brittany Chang-Kit, Glen Katsnelson, Parsa Merhraban Far, Elizabeth Uleryk, Adeteju Ogunbameru, Rafael N. Miranda, Tina Felfeli

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic and Prognostic Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkQueen's UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical physicsModalitiesGrading (engineering)MEDLINEReceiver operating characteristicCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMedicineArtificial intelligenceProtocol (science)Diagnostic accuracyComputer scienceMachine learningPathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in ophthalmology, the need to define its diagnostic accuracy is increasingly important. The review aims to elucidate the diagnostic accuracy of AI algorithms in screening for all ophthalmic conditions in patient care settings that involve digital imaging modalities, using the reference standard of human graders. METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. A literature search will be conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Wiley Cochrane CENTRAL from January 1, 2000, to December 20, 2021. Studies will be selected via screening the titles and abstracts, followed by full-text screening. Articles that compare the results of AI-graded ophthalmic images with results from human graders as a reference standard will be included; articles that do not will be excluded. The systematic review software DistillerSR will be used to automate part of the screening process as an adjunct to human reviewers. After the full-text screening, data will be extracted from each study via the categories of study characteristics, patient information, AI methods, intervention, and outcomes. Risk of bias will be scored using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) by two trained independent reviewers. Disagreements at any step will be addressed by a third adjudicator. The study results will include summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve plots as well as pooled sensitivity and specificity of artificial intelligence for detection of any ophthalmic conditions based on imaging modalities compared to the reference standard. Statistics will be calculated in the R statistical software. DISCUSSION: This study will provide novel insights into the diagnostic accuracy of AI in new domains of ophthalmology that have not been previously studied. The protocol also outlines the use of an AI-based software to assist in article screening, which may serve as a reference for improving the efficiency and accuracy of future large systematic reviews. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021274441.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.152
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.152
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.480
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.075 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic and Prognostic ResearchSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207