The Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Analysis of Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Management of Uveitis and Uveal Melanoma: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to identify the available literature describing the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) as a clinical tool in uveal diseases. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 5 electronic databases, finding studies relating to AI and uveal diseases. Results: After screening 10,258 studies,18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Uveal melanoma (44%) and uveitis (56%) were the two uveal diseases examined. Ten studies (56%) used complex AI, while 13 studies (72%) used regression methods. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), found in 50% of studies concerning uveal melanoma, was the only biomarker that overlapped in multiple studies. However, 94% of studies highlighted that the biomarkers of interest were significant. Conclusion: This study highlights the value of using complex and simple AI tools as a clinical tool in uveal diseases. Particularly, complex AI methods can be used to weigh the merit of significant biomarkers, such as LDH, in order to create staging tools and predict treatment outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".