ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Diagnostic performance of deep learning for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of machine learning algorithms to detect digital addiction: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- A web-based semi-supervised deep learning platform for automated AS-OCT assessment and monitoring of infectious keratitis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in microbial keratitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Ophthalmic drug discovery and development using artificial intelligence and digital health technologies.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- International corneal and ocular surface disease dataset for electronic health records.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Corneal Diseases.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Enhancing medical students' diagnostic accuracy of infectious keratitis with AI-generated images.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Applications of Computer Vision for Infectious Keratitis: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmology scienceReview
- Emerging diagnostic modalities in microbial keratitis: Beyond culture and smear.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Infectious keratitis (IK) is the leading cause of corneal blindness globally. Deep learning (DL) is an emerging tool for medical diagnosis, though its value in IK is unclear. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DL for IK and its comparative accuracy with ophthalmologists. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and clinical registries for studies related to DL for IK published between 1974 and July 16, 2024. We performed meta-analyses using bivariate models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022348596). Findings: Of 963 studies identified, 35 studies (136,401 corneal images from >56,011 patients) were included. Most studies had low risk of bias (68.6%) and low applicability concern (91.4%) in all domains of QUADAS-2, except the index test domain. Against the reference standard of expert consensus and/or microbiological results (seven external validation studies; 10,675 images), the summary estimates (95% CI) for sensitivity and specificity of DL for IK were 86.2% (71.6-93.9) and 96.3% (91.5-98.5). From 28 internal validation studies (16,059 images), summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 91.6% (86.8-94.8) and 90.7% (84.8-94.5). Based on seven studies (4007 images), DL and ophthalmologists had comparable summary sensitivity [89.2% (82.2-93.6) versus 82.2% (71.5-89.5); P = 0.20] and specificity [(93.2% (85.5-97.0) versus 89.6% (78.8-95.2); P = 0.45]. Interpretation: DL models may have good diagnostic accuracy for IK and comparable performance to ophthalmologists. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the image-based analysis that did not account for potential correlation within individuals, relatively homogeneous population studies, lack of pre-specification of DL thresholds, and limited external validation. Future studies should improve their reporting, data diversity, external validation, transparency, and explainability to increase the reliability and generalisability of DL models for clinical deployment. Funding: NIH, Wellcome Trust, MRC, Fight for Sight, BHP, and ESCRS.
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.