Diagnosing glaucoma in primary eye care and the role of Artificial Intelligence applications for reducing the prevalence of undetected glaucoma in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glaucoma is the commonest cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, with over 70% of people affected remaining undiagnosed. Early detection is crucial for halting progressive visual impairment in glaucoma patients, as there is no cure available. This narrative review aims to: identify reasons for the significant under-diagnosis of glaucoma globally, particularly in Australia, elucidate the role of primary healthcare in glaucoma diagnosis using Australian healthcare as an example, and discuss how recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) can be implemented to improve diagnostic outcomes. Glaucoma is a prevalent disease in ageing populations and can have improved visual outcomes through appropriate treatment, making it essential for general medical practice. In countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, and the UK, optometrists serve as the gatekeepers for primary eye care, and glaucoma detection often falls on their shoulders. However, there is significant variation in the capacity for glaucoma diagnosis among eye professionals. Automation with Artificial Intelligence (AI) analysis of optic nerve photos can help optometrists identify high-risk changes and mitigate the challenges of image interpretation rapidly and consistently. Despite its potential, there are significant barriers and challenges to address before AI can be deployed in primary healthcare settings, including external validation, high quality real-world implementation, protection of privacy and cybersecurity, and medico-legal implications. Overall, the incorporation of AI technology in primary healthcare has the potential to reduce the global prevalence of undiagnosed glaucoma cases by improving diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".