Assessment of predictive value of artificial intelligence for ophthalmic diseases using electronic health records: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in ophthalmology has shown significant promise across various clinical domains. This study addresses the need for assessing the predictive value of AI models utilizing electronic health records (EHRs) for diagnosis, prognostication and management of ocular diseases. A search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for relevant studies published between January 2010 to February 2023 on predictive value of AI algorithms in ophthalmic EHRs. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, with a protocol registered on Prospero (registration number: CRD42022303128). A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the meta-analysis. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess methodological quality and applicability of the included studies. Out of 4968 initial records, 41 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 639,637 patients, with an average disease prevalence of 11%. The studies exhibited a diagnostic odds ratio of 18.527 (95% CI: 9.654–35.556), sensitivity of 0.811 (95% CI: 0.751−0.859), specificity of 0.812 (95% CI: 0.736−0.87) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) moderate. Likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−) were 4.316 (95% CI: 2.938–6.339) and 0.233 (95% CI: 0.169−0.322), respectively. False positive rate was 0.188 (95% CI: 0.13−0.264). Inter-rate concordance for ROBINS-I scoring had a kappa score of 0.83. Out of the 41 studies, 22 had an overall low risk of bias, and 19 had a moderate risk of bias. There was a low to moderate quality of body of evidence for the reported outcomes. This meta-analysis affirms the substantial potential of AI models utilizing EHRs for predictive modeling and clinical management of ocular diseases. Future research should emphasize external validation and standardized reporting for better implementation of AI in ophthalmic practice.
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 | 0.044 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".