ReviewInternational ophthalmology2025
Advances in machine learning for keratoconus diagnosis.
Review in International ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
- The Future of Interventional Keratoconus Management: Perspectives on Integrating Epithelium-on Oxygen-Enriched Cross-Linking into Comprehensive Care Pathways.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
- Interventional Keratoconus Management: The Critical Imperative for Early Detection and Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based keratoconus detection from Scheimpflug images.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Highly efficient stacking ensemble learning model for automated keratoconus screening.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo review studies reporting the role of Machine Learning (ML) techniques in the diagnosis of keratoconus (KC) over the past decade, shedding light on recent developments while also highlighting the existing gaps between academic research and practical implementation in clinical settings.
methodsThe review process begins with a systematic search of primary digital libraries using relevant keywords. A rigorous set of inclusion and exclusion criteria is then applied, resulting in the identification of 62 articles for analysis. Key research questions are formulated to address advancements in ML for KC diagnosis, corneal imaging modalities, types of datasets utilised, and the spectrum of KC conditions investigated over the past decade. A significant gap between academic research and practical implementation in clinical settings is identified, forming the basis for actionable recommendations tailored for both ML developers and ophthalmologists. Additionally, a proposed roadmap model is presented to facilitate the integration of ML models into clinical practice, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and patient care.
resultsThe analysis revealed that the diagnosis of KC predominantly relies on supervised classifiers (97%), with Random Forest being the most used algorithm (27%), followed by Deep Learning including Convolution Neural Networks (16%), Feedforward and Feedback Neural Networks (12%), and Support Vector Machines (12%). Pentacam is identified as the leading corneal imaging modality (56%), and a substantial majority of studies (91%) utilize local datasets, primarily consisting of numerical corneal parameters (77%). The most studied KC conditions were non-KC (NKC) vs. clinical KC (CKC) (29%), NKC vs. Subclinical KC (SCKC) (24%), NKC vs. SCKC vs. CKC (20%), SCKC vs. CKC (7%). However, only 20% of studies focused on addressing KC severity stages, emphasizing the need for more research in this area. These findings highlight the current landscape of ML in KC diagnosis and uncover existing challenges, and suggest potential avenues for further research and development, with particular emphasis on the dominance of certain algorithms and imaging modalities.
conclusionKey obstacles include the lack of consensus on an objective diagnostic standard for early KC detection and severity staging, limited multidisciplinary collaboration, and restricted access to public datasets. Further research is crucial to overcome these challenges and apply findings in clinical practice.
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.