Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36177328›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Artificial intelligence approach for recommendation of pupil dilation test using medical interview and basic ophthalmologic examinations.

Hyunmin Ahn, Ikhyun Jun, Kyoung Yul Seo, Eung Kweon Kim, Tae-Im Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hyunmin AhnDepartment of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Ikhyun JunDepartment of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Kyoung Yul SeoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Eung Kweon KimCorneal Dystrophy Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Tae-Im KimDepartment of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Yonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the value of artificial intelligence (AI) for recommendation of pupil dilation test using medical interview and basic ophthalmologic examinations. Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. Subjects: Medical records of 56,811 patients who visited our outpatient clinic for the first time between 2017 and 2020 were included in the training dataset. Patients who visited the clinic in 2021 were included in the test dataset. Among these, 3,885 asymptomatic patients, including eye check-up patients, were initially included in test dataset I. Subsequently, 14,199 symptomatic patients who visited the clinic in 2021 were included in test dataset II. Methods: All patients underwent a medical interview and basic ophthalmologic examinations such as uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, non-contact tonometry, auto-keratometry, slit-lamp examination, dilated pupil test, and fundus examination. A clinically significant lesion in the lens, vitreous, and fundus was defined by subspecialists, and the need for a pupil dilation test was determined when the participants had one or more clinically significant lesions in any eye. Input variables of AI consisted of a medical interview and basic ophthalmologic examinations, and the AI was evaluated with predictive performance for the need of a pupil dilation test. Main outcome measures: Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Results: Clinically significant lesions were present in 26.5 and 59.1% of patients in test datasets I and II, respectively. In test dataset I, the model performances were as follows: accuracy, 0.908 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.880-0.936); sensitivity, 0.757 (95% CI: 0.713-0.801); specificity, 0.962 (95% CI: 0.947-0.977); positive predictive value, 0.878 (95% CI: 0.834-0.922); and F1 score, 0.813. In test dataset II, the model had an accuracy of 0.949 (95% CI: 0.934-0.964), a sensitivity of 0.942 (95% CI: 0.928-956), a specificity of 0.960 (95% CI: 0.927-0.993), a positive predictive value of 0.971 (95% CI: 0.957-0.985), and a F1 score of 0.956. Conclusion: The AI model performing a medical interview and basic ophthalmologic examinations to determine the need for a pupil dilation test had good sensitivity and specificity for symptomatic patients, although there was a limitation in identifying asymptomatic patients.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencemachine learningmedical interviewophthalmologic examinationpupil dilation test

Identifiers

PMID36177328
PMCPMC9513048
OpenAlexW4295846853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.