Oculoplastics and Augmented Intelligence: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and augmented intelligence have significant potential in oculoplastics, offering tools for diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and administrative efficiency. This article discusses current and potential applications of AI in ptosis, eyelid and conjunctival cancer, thyroid-associated orbitopathy (TAO), giant cell arteritis (GCA), and orbital fractures. AI-based programs can assist in screening, predicting surgical outcomes, and improving patient care through data-driven decisions. Privacy concerns, particularly with the use of facial and ocular photographs, require robust solutions, including blockchain, federated learning and steganography. Large generalizable datasets with adequate validation are crucial for future AI development. While AI can assist in clinical decision-making and administrative tasks, physician oversight remains critical to prevent potential errors. Large language models like ChatGPT also have the potential to counsel patients, although further validation is needed to ensure accuracy and patient safety. Ultimately, AI should be regarded as an augmentative tool that supports, rather than replaces, physician expertise in oculoplastic care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".