MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413769926 · doi:10.1097/wno.0000000000002393

Artificial Intelligence Diagnosis of Ocular Motility Disorders From Clinical Videos

2025· article· en· W4413769926 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) models have recently expanded into video analysis. In ophthalmology, one exploratory application is the automated detection of extraocular movement (EOM) disorders. This proof-of-concept study evaluated the feasibility of using Gemini 2.0 to recognize EOM abnormalities, identify the affected eye, and recognize specific movement limitations from publicly available, real-world clinical videos. METHODS: We retrospectively collected 114 YouTube videos of EOM disorders, including cranial nerve (CN) palsies, internuclear ophthalmoplegia (INO), supranuclear disorders, nystagmus, and ocular myasthenia gravis (MG), alongside 15 control videos demonstrating normal EOMs. Videos were trimmed to include only the pertinent clinical examinations, and audio was removed to avoid diagnostic cues. Using a standardized zero-shot prompt, Gemini 2.0 analyzed each video via the Google AI Studio platform. Gemini 2.0 was evaluated based on its ability to provide the correct diagnosis, identify the affected eye, and recognize the specific movement limitation (if any). Descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations, and comparative analyses were used to assess performance. RESULTS: Gemini 2.0 correctly identified the primary diagnosis in 43 of 114 videos, yielding an overall diagnostic accuracy of 37.7%. Diagnostic performance varied by condition, with the highest accuracies observed in third nerve palsy (81.1%), INO (80.0%), sixth nerve palsy (66.7%), and ocular MG (20.0%), whereas normal EOMs were correctly classified in 93.3% of cases. In misclassified cases, the correct diagnosis appeared in the differential diagnosis in 15.5% of instances. Laterality was correctly identified in 26.5% of eligible cases overall, 73.1% among correctly diagnosed cases vs. 9.6% in misclassified ones. Similarly, movement limitations were accurately identified in 30.3% of eligible cases overall, with a marked increase to 88.5% accuracy in correctly diagnosed cases compared to 9.6% in misclassified cases. Longer videos moderately correlated with longer processing time (ρ = 0.55, P < 0.001). Significant correlations were observed between correct diagnosis and correct laterality identification (ρ = 0.45, P < 0.001), correct diagnosis and correct movement limitation identification (ρ = 0.61, P < 0.001), and laterality and movement limitation (ρ = 0.51, P < 0.001). Processing time averaged 11.0 seconds and correlated with video length (ρ = 0.55, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the feasibility of using Gemini 2.0 for automated recognition of EOM abnormalities in clinical videos. Although performance was stronger in overt cases, overall diagnostic accuracy remains limited. Substantial validation on standardized, clinician-annotated datasets is needed before clinical application.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it