Reverse translation of artificial intelligence in glaucoma: Connecting basic science with clinical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been approved for biomedical research in diverse areas from bedside clinical studies to benchtop basic scientific research. For ophthalmic research, in particular glaucoma, AI applications are rapidly growing for potential clinical translation given the vast data available and the introduction of federated learning. Conversely, AI for basic science remains limited despite its useful power in providing mechanistic insight. In this perspective, we discuss recent progress, opportunities, and challenges in the application of AI in glaucoma for scientific discoveries. Specifically, we focus on the research paradigm of reverse translation, in which clinical data are first used for patient-centered hypothesis generation followed by transitioning into basic science studies for hypothesis validation. We elaborate on several distinctive areas of research opportunities for reverse translation of AI in glaucoma including disease risk and progression prediction, pathology characterization, and sub-phenotype identification. We conclude with current challenges and future opportunities for AI research in basic science for glaucoma such as inter-species diversity, AI model generalizability and explainability, as well as AI applications using advanced ocular imaging and genomic data.
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 | 0.022 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".