Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40094103›Full record

ReviewClinical optometry2025

Artificial Intelligence in Optometry: Current and Future Perspectives.

Anantha Krishnan, Ananya Dutta, Alok Srivastava, Nagaraju Konda, Ruby Kala Prakasam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical optometry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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) · 2026
    Article
  3. Artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors.

Anantha Krishnan *School of Medical Sciences, Science Complex, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Ananya Dutta *Standard Chartered - LVPEI Academy for Eye Care Education, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Mithu Tulsi Chanrai Campus, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Alok SrivastavaL V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Nagaraju KondaSchool of Medical Sciences, Science Complex, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Ruby Kala PrakasamStandard Chartered - LVPEI Academy for Eye Care Education, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Gullapalli Pratibha Rao Campus, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5433-4546

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the global shortage of eye care professionals and the increasing burden of vision impairment, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, there is an urgent need for innovative solutions to bridge gaps in eye care services. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) over recent decades have significantly impacted healthcare, including the field of optometry. When integrated into optometric workflows, AI has the potential to streamline decision-making processes and enhance system efficiency. To realize this potential, it is essential to develop AI models that can improve each stage of the patient care workflow, including screening, detection, diagnosis, and management. This review explores the application of AI in optometry, focusing on its potential to optimize various aspects of patient care. We examined AI models across key areas in optometry. Our analysis considered crucial parameters, including model selection, sample sizes for training and validation, evaluation metrics, and the explainability of the models. This comprehensive review identified both the strengths and weaknesses of existing AI models. The majority of image-based studies utilized CNN or transfer learning models, while clinical data-based studies primarily employed RF, SVM, and XGBoost. In general, AI models trained on large datasets achieved higher accuracy. However, many optometry-focused models faced limitations due to insufficient sample sizes-28% of studies were trained on fewer than 500 samples, 18% used fewer than 200 samples, and over half validated their models on fewer than 500 samples, with 38% validating on fewer than 200. Additionally, some studies that used the same data for both training and validation experienced overfitting, leading to reduced accuracy. Notably, 20% of the included studies reported accuracy below 80%, limiting their practical applicability in clinical settings. This review provides optometrists with valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of AI models in the field, aiding in their informed implementation in clinical settings.

Indexed as

AI applicationartificial intelligenceoptometry

Identifiers

PMID40094103
PMCPMC11910921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.