Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38618893›Full record

SynthesisTranslational vision science & technology2024

Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Simon Müller, Mohit Jain, Bhuvan Sachdeva, Payal N Shah, Frank G Holz, Robert P Finger, Kaushik Murali, Maximilian W M Wintergerst, Thomas Schultz

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
    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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Simon MüllerUniversity Hospital Bonn, Department of Ophthalmology, Bonn, Germany.
Mohit JainMicrosoft Research, Bengaluru, India.
Bhuvan SachdevaMicrosoft Research, Bengaluru, India.
Payal N ShahSankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Frank G HolzUniversity Hospital Bonn, Department of Ophthalmology, Bonn, Germany.
Robert P FingerUniversity Hospital Bonn, Department of Ophthalmology, Bonn, Germany.
Kaushik MuraliSankara Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Maximilian W M WintergerstUniversity Hospital Bonn, Department of Ophthalmology, Bonn, Germany.
Thomas SchultzB-IT and Department of Computer Science, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Eye Hospital in Bangalore · INUniversity Hospital Bonn · DELamarr Institute for Machine Learning and Artificial IntelligenceMicrosoft Research (India) · INUniversity Medical Centre Mannheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the current use and reliability of artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithms for analyzing cataract surgery videos. Methods: A systematic review of the literature about intra-operative analysis of cataract surgery videos with machine learning techniques was performed. Cataract diagnosis and detection algorithms were excluded. Resulting algorithms were compared, descriptively analyzed, and metrics summarized or visually reported. The reproducibility and reliability of the methods and results were assessed using a modified version of the Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted (MICCAI) checklist. Results: Thirty-eight of the 550 screened studies were included, 20 addressed the challenge of instrument detection or tracking, 9 focused on phase discrimination, and 8 predicted skill and complications. Instrument detection achieves an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC AUC) between 0.976 and 0.998, instrument tracking an mAP between 0.685 and 0.929, phase recognition an ROC AUC between 0.773 and 0.990, and complications or surgical skill performs with an ROC AUC between 0.570 and 0.970. Conclusions: The studies showed a wide variation in quality and pose a challenge regarding replication due to a small number of public datasets (none for manual small incision cataract surgery) and seldom published source code. There is no standard for reported outcome metrics and validation of the models on external datasets is rare making comparisons difficult. The data suggests that tracking of instruments and phase detection work well but surgical skill and complication recognition remains a challenge for deep learning. Translational Relevance: This overview of cataract surgery analysis with AI models provides translational value for improving training of the clinician by identifying successes and challenges.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCataract ExtractionAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSurgery, Computer-AssistedVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID38618893
PMCPMC11033603
OpenAlexW4394818659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.