Adherence of randomised controlled trials using artificial intelligence in ophthalmology to CONSORT-AI guidelines: a systematic review and critical appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many efforts have been made to explore the potential of deep learning and artificial intelligence (AI) in disciplines such as medicine, including ophthalmology. This systematic review aims to evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate AI technologies applied to ophthalmology. METHODS: A comprehensive search of three relevant databases (EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane) from 1 January 2010 to 5 February 2022 was conducted. The reporting quality of these papers was scored using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence (CONSORT-AI) checklist and further risk of bias was assessed using the RoB-2 tool. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2973 citations from which 5 articles satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria. These articles featured AI technologies applied to diabetic retinopathy screening, ophthalmologic education, fungal keratitis detection and paediatric cataract diagnosis. None of the articles reported all items in the CONSORT-AI checklist. The overall mean CONSORT-AI score of the included RCTs was 53% (range 37%-78%). The individual scores of the articles were 37% (19/51), 39% (20), 49% (25), 61% (31) and 78% (40). All articles were scored as being moderate risk, or 'some concerns present', regarding potential risk of bias according to the RoB-2 tool. CONCLUSION: A small number of RCTs have been published to date on the applications of AI in ophthalmology and vision science. Adherence to the 2020 CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines is suboptimal with notable reporting items often missed. Greater adherence will help facilitate reproducibility of AI research which can be a stimulus for more AI-based RCTs and clinical applications in ophthalmology.
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 | 0.418 | 0.712 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".