ReviewCureus2024
Role of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Refractive Errors for Enhanced Eye Care: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of binocular vision status between spectacles & spherical equivalent soft contact lens wear in patients with low myopic astigmatism.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in refractive error management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in myopia prevention and control.Pediatric investigation · 2025Review
- A study on the variability and correlation of ocular biological measurement parameters in adult myopic patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
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
A significant contributor to blindness and visual impairment globally is uncorrected refractive error. To plan effective interventions, eye care professionals must promptly identify people at a high risk of acquiring myopia, and monitor disease progress. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have enormous potential to improve diagnosis and treatment. This systematic review explores the current state of ML and AI applications in the diagnoses and treatment of refractory errors in optometry. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of AI-based tools in PubMed was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. To find relevant studies on the use of ML or AI in the diagnosis or treatment of refractive errors in optometry, a thorough search was conducted in various electronic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The search was limited to studies published between January 2015 and December 2022. The search terms used were "refractive errors," "myopia," "optometry," "machine learning," "ophthalmology," and "artificial intelligence." A total of nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. ML is increasingly being utilized for automating clinical data processing as AI technology progresses, making the formerly labor-intensive work possible. AI models that primarily use a neural network demonstrated exceptional efficiency and performance in the analysis of vast medical data, rivaling board-certified, healthcare professionals. Several studies showed that ML models could support diagnosis and clinical decision-making. Moreover, an ML algorithm predicted future refraction values in patients with myopia. AI and ML models have great potential to improve the diagnosis and treatment of refractive errors in optometry.
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.