AI as a Medical Device for Ophthalmic Imaging in Europe, Australia, and the United States: Protocol for a Systematic Scoping Review of Regulated Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence as a medical device (AIaMD) has the potential to transform many aspects of ophthalmic care, such as improving accuracy and speed of diagnosis, addressing capacity issues in high-volume areas such as screening, and detecting novel biomarkers of systemic disease in the eye (oculomics). In order to ensure that such tools are safe for the target population and achieve their intended purpose, it is important that these AIaMD have adequate clinical evaluation to support any regulatory decision. Currently, the evidential requirements for regulatory approval are less clear for AIaMD compared to more established interventions such as drugs or medical devices. There is therefore value in understanding the level of evidence that underpins AIaMD currently on the market, as a step toward identifying what the best practices might be in this area. In this systematic scoping review, we will focus on AIaMD that contributes to clinical decision-making (relating to screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment) in the context of ophthalmic imaging. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify regulator-approved AIaMD for ophthalmic imaging in Europe, Australia, and the United States; report the characteristics of these devices and their regulatory approvals; and report the available evidence underpinning these AIaMD. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration (United States), the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (Australia), the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (United Kingdom), and the European Database on Medical Devices (European Union) regulatory databases will be searched for ophthalmic imaging AIaMD through a snowballing approach. PubMed and clinical trial registries will be systematically searched, and manufacturers will be directly contacted for studies investigating the effectiveness of eligible AIaMD. Preliminary regulatory database searches, evidence searches, screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment will be undertaken by 2 independent review authors and arbitrated by a third at each stage of the process. RESULTS: Preliminary searches were conducted in February 2023. Data extraction, data synthesis, and assessment of methodological quality commenced in October 2023. The review is on track to be completed and submitted for peer review by April 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will provide greater clarity on ophthalmic imaging AIaMD that have achieved regulatory approval as well as the evidence that underpins them. This should help adopters understand the range of tools available and whether they can be safely incorporated into their clinical workflow, and it should also support developers in navigating regulatory approval more efficiently. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52602.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".