Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33117612›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms to Diagnose Glaucoma and Detect Glaucoma Progression: Translation to Clinical Practice.

Anna S Mursch-Edlmayr, Wai Siene Ng, Alberto Diniz-Filho, David C Sousa, Louis Arnold, Matthew B Schlenker, Karla Duenas-Angeles, Pearse A Keane, Jonathan G Crowston, Hari Jayaram

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Current perspectives in tackling glaucoma blindness.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Editorial: Imaging in glaucoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Anna S Mursch-EdlmayrDepartment of Ophthalmology Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Wai Siene NgCardiff Eye Unit, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Alberto Diniz-FilhoDepartment of Ophthalmology and Otorhinolaryngology, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
David C SousaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Santa Maria, Lisbon, Portugal.
Louis ArnoldDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital, Dijon, France.
Matthew B SchlenkerDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Karla Duenas-AngelesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.
Pearse A KeaneNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology & Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.
Jonathan G CrowstonCentre for Vision Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
Hari JayaramNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology & Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CS-2014-14-023Medical Research Council MR/T019050/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This concise review aims to explore the potential for the clinical implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) strategies for detecting glaucoma and monitoring glaucoma progression. Methods: Nonsystematic literature review using the search combinations "Artificial Intelligence," "Deep Learning," "Machine Learning," "Neural Networks," "Bayesian Networks," "Glaucoma Diagnosis," and "Glaucoma Progression." Information on sensitivity and specificity regarding glaucoma diagnosis and progression analysis as well as methodological details were extracted. Results: Numerous AI strategies provide promising levels of specificity and sensitivity for structural (e.g. optical coherence tomography [OCT] imaging, fundus photography) and functional (visual field [VF] testing) test modalities used for the detection of glaucoma. Area under receiver operating curve (AROC) values of > 0.90 were achieved with every modality. Combining structural and functional inputs has been shown to even more improve the diagnostic ability. Regarding glaucoma progression, AI strategies can detect progression earlier than conventional methods or potentially from one single VF test. Conclusions: AI algorithms applied to fundus photographs for screening purposes may provide good results using a simple and widely accessible test. However, for patients who are likely to have glaucoma more sophisticated methods should be used including data from OCT and perimetry. Outputs may serve as an adjunct to assist clinical decision making, whereas also enhancing the efficiency, productivity, and quality of the delivery of glaucoma care. Patients with diagnosed glaucoma may benefit from future algorithms to evaluate their risk of progression. Challenges are yet to be overcome, including the external validity of AI strategies, a move from a "black box" toward "explainable AI," and likely regulatory hurdles. However, it is clear that AI can enhance the role of specialist clinicians and will inevitably shape the future of the delivery of glaucoma care to the next generation. Translational Relevance: The promising levels of diagnostic accuracy reported by AI strategies across the modalities used in clinical practice for glaucoma detection can pave the way for the development of reliable models appropriate for their translation into clinical practice. Future incorporation of AI into healthcare models may help address the current limitations of access and timely management of patients with glaucoma across the world.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceGlaucomaAlgorithmsBayes TheoremHumansVisual Field Testsartificial intelligenceglaucomamachine learning

Identifiers

PMID33117612
PMCPMC7571273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.