The role of artificial intelligence in macular hole management: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We focus on the utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in the management of macular hole (MH). We synthesize 25 studies, comprehensively reporting on each AI model's development strategy, validation, tasks, performance, strengths, and limitations. All models analyzed ophthalmic images, and 5 (20 %) also analyzed clinical features. Study objectives were categorized based on 3 stages of MH care: diagnosis, identification of MH characteristics, and postoperative predictions of hole closure and vision recovery. Twenty-two (88 %) AI models underwent supervised learning, and the models were most often deployed to determine a MH diagnosis. None of the articles applied AI to guiding treatment plans. AI model performance was compared to other algorithms and to human graders. Of the 10 studies comparing AI to human graders (i.e., retinal specialists, general ophthalmologists, and ophthalmology trainees), 5 (50 %) reported equivalent or higher performance. Overall, AI analysis of images and clinical characteristics in MH demonstrated high diagnostic and predictive accuracy. Convolutional neural networks comprised the majority of included AI models, including those which were high performing. Future research may consider validating algorithms to propose personalized treatment plans and explore clinical use of the aforementioned algorithms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".