Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning classifiers for cataracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of current machine learning classifiers for pediatric and adult cataracts. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were searched systematically and thoroughly. Conferences held through Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Canadian Society of Ophthalmology were searched. Studies were screened using Covidence software and data on sensitivity, specificity and area under curve were extracted from the included studies. STATA 15.0 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Our search strategy identified 150 records from databases and 35 records from gray literature. Total of 21 records were used for the qualitative analysis and 11 records (100 134 images) were used for the quantitative analysis. In adult patients with cataracts, the pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.948 [95% CI: 0.815–0.987] and specificity was 0.960 [95% CI: 0.924–0.980] for cataract screening using machine learning classifiers. For pediatric cataracts, the pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.882 [95% CI: 0.696–0.960] and specificity was 0.891 [95% CI: 0.807–0.942]. The included studies show promising results for the diagnostic accuracy of the machine learning classifiers for cataracts and its potential implementation in clinical settings. CRD42020219316
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 | 0.025 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".