Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39469534›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Diagnostic performance of deep learning for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zun Zheng Ong, Youssef Sadek, Riaz Qureshi, Su-Hsun Liu, Tianjing Li, Xiaoxuan Liu, Yemisi Takwoingi, Viknesh Sounderajah, Hutan Ashrafian, Daniel S W Ting and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Artificial intelligence in microbial keratitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Emerging diagnostic modalities in microbial keratitis: Beyond culture and smear.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
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

16 authors.

Zun Zheng OngBirmingham and Midland Eye Centre, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Youssef SadekBirmingham Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, UK.
Riaz QureshiDepartment of Ophthalmology and Department of Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Su-Hsun LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology and Department of Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Tianjing LiDepartment of Ophthalmology and Department of Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Xiaoxuan LiuDepartment of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, UK.
Yemisi TakwoingiDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Viknesh SounderajahInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Hutan AshrafianInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Daniel S W TingSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
Jodhbir S MehtaSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore.
Saaeha RauzBirmingham and Midland Eye Centre, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Dalia G SaidAcademic Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Harminder S DuaAcademic Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Matthew J BurtonInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Darren S J TingBirmingham and Midland Eye Centre, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Maximizing Use of High-Quality Evidence in Eye Care: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US ProjectUG1EY020522 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Tianjing Li · 2017 to 2026
$10.1M
Determinants of the periocular microbiomeU24EY035062 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI VAN GELDER, RUSSELL N. · 2023 to 2025
$2.2M
NEI NIH HHS U24 EY035062NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY020522Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceCorneal infectionCorneal ulcerDeep learningInfectious keratitisMicrobial keratitis

Identifiers

PMID39469534
PMCPMC11513659

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.