Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38196833›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

Artificial intelligence-based screening for amblyopia and its risk factors: comparison with four classic stereovision tests.

Zsófia Csizek, Eszter Mikó-Baráth, Anna Budai, Andrew B Frigyik, Ágota Pusztai, Vanda A Nemes, László Závori, Diána Fülöp, András Czigler, Kitti Szabó-Guth and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Artificial intelligence in pediatric myopia - a narrative review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Attitudes and Knowledge Levels of Optometry Students and Educators Towards Artificial Intelligence in Optometric Practice: An Online Cross-Sectional Survey.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Recommended practices for vision screening in pre-school-age children: A 2025 update.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zsófia Csizek *Institute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Eszter Mikó-Baráth *Institute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Anna BudaiInstitute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Andrew B FrigyikInstitute of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Ágota PusztaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Vanda A NemesInstitute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
László ZávoriInstitute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Diána FülöpInstitute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
András CziglerInstitute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Kitti Szabó-GuthInstitute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Péter BuzásInstitute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
David P PiñeroDepartment of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.
Gábor JandóInstitute of Physiology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
University of Pecs · HUUniversity of Alicante · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The development of costs-effective and sensitive screening solutions to prevent amblyopia and identify its risk factors (strabismus, refractive problems or mixed) is a significant priority of pediatric ophthalmology. The main objective of our study was to compare the classification performance of various vision screening tests, including classic, stereoacuity-based tests (Lang II, TNO, Stereo Fly, and Frisby), and non-stereoacuity-based, low-density static, dynamic, and noisy anaglyphic random dot stereograms. We determined whether the combination of non-stereoacuity-based tests integrated in the simplest artificial intelligence (AI) model could be an alternative method for vision screening. Methods: Our study, conducted in Spain and Hungary, is a non-experimental, cross-sectional diagnostic test assessment focused on pediatric eye conditions. Using convenience sampling, we enrolled 423 children aged 3.6-14 years, diagnosed with amblyopia, strabismus, or refractive errors, and compared them to age-matched emmetropic controls. Comprehensive pediatric ophthalmologic examinations ascertained diagnoses. Participants used filter glasses for stereovision tests and red-green goggles for an AI-based test over their prescribed glasses. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were our metrics, with sensitivity being the primary endpoint. AUCs were analyzed using DeLong's method, and binary classifications (pathologic vs. normal) were evaluated using McNemar's matched pair and Fisher's nonparametric tests. Results: Four non-overlapping groups were studied: (1) amblyopia ( Discussion: The combination of multiple tests utilizing anaglyphic random dot stereograms with varying parameters (density, noise, dynamism) in AI leads to the most advanced and sensitive screening test for identifying amblyopia and amblyogenic conditions compared to all the other tests studied.

Indexed as

amblyogenic conditionsamblyopiaamblyopia risk factorsartificial intelligence – AIcost-effectiveROC (receiver operating characteristic) analysisscreeningstrabism

Identifiers

PMID38196833
PMCPMC10775855
OpenAlexW4390103126

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.