Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33958739›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2022

Diagnostic accuracy of current machine learning classifiers for age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ronald Cheung, Jacob Chun, Tom Sheidow, Michael Motolko, Monali S Malvankar-Mehta

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology and the Communication Sciences.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ronald CheungDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1723-8838
Jacob ChunFaculty of Science, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Tom SheidowDepartment of Ophthalmology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6370-1857
Michael MotolkoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Monali S Malvankar-MehtaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. monali.malvankar@sjhc.london.on.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe objective of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of current machine learning classifiers for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Artificial intelligence diagnostic algorithms can automatically detect and diagnose AMD through training data from large sets of fundus or OCT images. The use of AI algorithms is a powerful tool, and it is a method of obtaining a cost-effective, simple, and fast diagnosis of AMD.

methodsMEDLINE, 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.

resultsOur search strategy identified 307 records from online databases and 174 records from gray literature. Total of 13 records, 64,798 subjects (and 612,429 images), were used for the quantitative analysis. The pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.918 [95% CI: 0.678, 0.98] and specificity was 0.888 [95% CI: 0.578, 0.98] for AMD screening using machine learning classifiers. The relative odds of a positive screen test in AMD cases were 89.74 [95% CI: 3.05-2641.59] times more likely than a negative screen test in non-AMD cases. The positive likelihood ratio was 8.22 [95% CI: 1.52-44.48] and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 [95% CI: 0.02-0.52].

conclusionThe included studies show promising results for the diagnostic accuracy of the machine learning classifiers for AMD and its implementation in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMacular DegenerationCanadaFundus OculiHumansMachine LearningUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33958739
PMCPMC9046206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.