Artificial intelligence for surgical outcome prediction in glaucoma: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness, and its rising global prevalence has led to a significant increase in glaucoma surgeries. However, predicting postoperative outcomes remains challenging due to the complex interplay of patient factors, surgical techniques, and postoperative care. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for enhancing predictive accuracy in clinical decision-making. Methods: This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the current evidence on the use of AI to predict surgical outcomes in glaucoma patients. A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed. Studies were included if they applied AI models to glaucoma surgery outcome prediction. Results: Six studies met inclusion criteria, collectively analyzing 4,630 surgeries. A variety of algorithms were applied, including random forests, support vector machines, and neural networks. Overall, AI models consistently outperformed traditional statistical approaches, with the best-performing model achieving an accuracy of 87.5%. Key predictors of outcomes included demographic factors (e.g., age), systemic health indicators (e.g., smoking status and body mass index), and ophthalmic parameters (e.g., baseline intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, mitomycin C use). Discussion: While AI models demonstrated superior performance to traditional statistical approaches, the lack of external validation and standardized surgical success definitions limit their clinical applicability. This review highlights both the promise and the current limitations of artificial intelligence in glaucoma surgery outcome prediction, emphasizing the need for prospective, multicenter studies, publicly available datasets, and standardized evaluation metrics to enhance the generalizability and clinical utility of future models. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024621758, identifier: CRD42024621758.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".