ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Artificial intelligence-based screening for amblyopia and its risk factors: comparison with four classic stereovision tests.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2026Review
- Clinical Performance and Implementation of AI-Enabled Paediatric Ophthalmic Screening, Triage, Diagnosis, and Surveillance in Primary, Community, and Referral-Linked Pathways: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of a Novel Autostereoscopic Three-Dimensional System for Binocular Visual Function: A Comparative Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 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) · 2026Article
- Assessment of Visual Acuity and Stereopsis in Older Adults: A Comparison Between a Screening Application and Clinical Standards-A Feasibility Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Assessing large language models as assistive tools in selecting first trial lens parameters for orthokeratology.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Optometry: Current and Future Perspectives.Clinical optometry · 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.