The impact of artificial intelligence on retinal disease management: Vision Academy retinal expert consensus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to define the "state-of-the-art" in artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled devices that support the management of retinal conditions and to provide Vision Academy recommendations on the topic. RECENT FINDINGS: Most of the AI models described in the literature have not been approved for disease management purposes by regulatory authorities. These new technologies are promising as they may be able to provide personalized treatments as well as a personalized risk score for various retinal diseases. However, several issues still need to be addressed, such as the lack of a common regulatory pathway and a lack of clarity regarding the applicability of AI-enabled medical devices in different populations. SUMMARY: It is likely that current clinical practice will need to change following the application of AI-enabled medical devices. These devices are likely to have an impact on the management of retinal disease. However, a consensus needs to be reached to ensure they are safe and effective for the overall population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it