ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Deceptive Tricks in Artificial Intelligence: Adversarial Attacks in Ophthalmology.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current status and solutions for AI ethics in ophthalmology: a bibliometric analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Generative AI cybersecurity and resilience.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The artificial intelligence (AI) systems used for diagnosing ophthalmic diseases have significantly progressed in recent years. The diagnosis of difficult eye conditions, such as cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, and retinopathy of prematurity, has become significantly less complicated as a result of the development of AI algorithms, which are currently on par with ophthalmologists in terms of their level of effectiveness. However, in the context of building AI systems for medical applications such as identifying eye diseases, addressing the challenges of safety and trustworthiness is paramount, including the emerging threat of adversarial attacks. Research has increasingly focused on understanding and mitigating these attacks, with numerous articles discussing this topic in recent years. As a starting point for our discussion, we used the paper by Ma et al. "Understanding Adversarial Attacks on Deep Learning Based Medical Image Analysis Systems". A literature review was performed for this study, which included a thorough search of open-access research papers using online sources (PubMed and Google). The research provides examples of unique attack strategies for medical images. Unfortunately, unique algorithms for attacks on the various ophthalmic image types have yet to be developed. It is a task that needs to be performed. As a result, it is necessary to build algorithms that validate the computation and explain the findings of artificial intelligence models. In this article, we focus on adversarial attacks, one of the most well-known attack methods, which provide evidence (i.e., adversarial examples) of the lack of resilience of decision models that do not include provable guarantees. Adversarial attacks have the potential to provide inaccurate findings in deep learning systems and can have catastrophic effects in the healthcare industry, such as healthcare financing fraud and wrong diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.