ReviewEye (London, England)2025
The acceptance of ophthalmic artificial intelligence for eye diseases: a literature review and qualitative analysis.
Review in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accuracy, readability, and bias of GPT-4o mini responses to oculoplastic patient questions.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thorough investigations of end-users' awareness, acceptance, and concerns about ophthalmic artificial intelligence (AI) are essential to ensure its successful implementation. We conducted a literature review on the acceptance of ophthalmic AI to provide an overall insight and qualitatively analysed the quality of eligible studies using a psychological model. We identified sixteen studies and evaluated these studies based on four primary factors (i.e., performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions) and four regulating factors (i.e., gender, age, experiences, and voluntariness of use) of the psychological model. We found that most of the eligible studies only emphasized performance expectancy and effort expectancy, and in-depth discussions on the effects of social influence, facilitating conditions, and relevant regulating factors were relatively inadequate. The overall acceptance of ophthalmic AI among specific groups, such as patients with different eye diseases, experts in ophthalmology, professionals in other fields, and the general population, is high. Nevertheless, more well-designed qualitative studies with clear definitions of acceptance and using proper psychological models with larger sample sizes involving other representative and multidisciplinary stakeholders worldwide are still warranted. In addition, because of the multifarious concerns of AI, such as the economic burden, patient privacy, model safety, model trustworthiness, public awareness, and proper regulations over accountability issues, it is imperative to focus on evidence-based medicine, conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials, and promote patient education. Comprehensive clinician training, privacy-preserving technologies, and the issue of cost-effectiveness are also indispensable to address the above concerns and further propel the overall acceptance of ophthalmic AI.
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.