Accelerating insight: the role of artificial intelligence in health economic analysis for ophthalmology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Traditional health economic analysis is essential for guiding healthcare decision-making but is hindered by slow, resource-intensive processes. This review examines how recent advancements in artificial intelligence can automate and accelerate the core components of health economic analysis, from evidence generation to economic modeling and regulatory submissions, and explores the implications of this transformation for ophthalmology. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent proof-of-concept studies demonstrate that artificial intelligence can automate systematic literature reviews with high accuracy, significantly reducing screening times while matching or exceeding the sensitivity of human reviewers. In economic modeling, artificial intelligence systems can now autonomously write and adapt complex simulation code from textual descriptions, replicating the results of published models with near-perfect fidelity. Furthermore, to ensure rigor, new reporting guidelines like ELEVATE-GenAI are emerging alongside proactive regulatory position statements from health technology assessment agencies like NICE. While direct applications in ophthalmology remain in their early stages, these combined developments signal a transformative potential to accelerate the cost-effectiveness assessment of emerging sight-saving technologies. SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence-driven automation represents a paradigm shift in health economic analysis, enabling evaluations that once took months to be completed in a fraction of the time. This capability is particularly critical for ophthalmology's rapidly evolving technological landscape, enabling dynamic assessment of innovations from artificial intelligence-powered diagnostics and robotic surgical systems to novel gene therapies and advanced pharmaceuticals. Although challenges remain regarding analytical validity, bias amplification, and regulatory acceptance, the integration of artificial intelligence promises to accelerate evidence-based adoption of sight-saving technologies through responsive, context-specific economic insights.
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 | 0.074 | 0.314 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".