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
Foundation models represent a paradigm shift in artificial intelligence (AI), evolving from narrow models designed for specific tasks to versatile, generalisable models adaptable to a myriad of diverse applications. Ophthalmology as a specialty has the potential to act as an exemplar for other medical specialties, offering a blueprint for integrating foundation models broadly into clinical practice. This review hopes to serve as a roadmap for eyecare professionals seeking to better understand foundation models, while equipping readers with the tools to explore the use of foundation models in their own research and practice. We begin by outlining the key concepts and technological advances which have enabled the development of these models, providing an overview of novel training approaches and modern AI architectures. Next, we summarise existing literature on the topic of foundation models in ophthalmology, encompassing progress in vision foundation models, large language models and large multimodal models. Finally, we outline major challenges relating to privacy, bias and clinical validation, and propose key steps forward to maximise the benefit of this powerful technology.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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