ReviewOphthalmology science
Applications of Computer Vision for Infectious Keratitis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning for detecting early gastric cancer with white-light endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond the Barrier: Overcoming Ocular Antimicrobial Resistance Through AI and Novel Therapeutics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Pathogen Detection: Algorithms, Biosensing Platforms, and Applications.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in microbial keratitis.Indian journal of 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical Relevance: Corneal ulcers cause preventable blindness in >2 million individuals annually, primarily affecting low- and middle-income countries. Prompt and accurate pathogen identification is essential for targeted antimicrobial treatment, yet current diagnostic methods are costly and slow and require specialized expertise, limiting accessibility. Methods: We systematically reviewed literature published from 2017 to 2024, identifying 37 studies that developed or validated artificial intelligence (AI) models for pathogen detection and related classification tasks in infectious keratitis. The studies were analyzed for model types, input modalities, datasets, ground truth determination methods, and validation practices. Results: Artificial intelligence models demonstrated promising accuracy in pathogen detection using image interpretation techniques. Common limitations included limited generalizability, lack of diverse datasets, absence of multilabeled classification methods, and variability in ground truth standards. Most studies relied on single-center retrospective datasets, limiting applicability in routine clinical practice. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence shows significant potential to improve pathogen detection in infectious keratitis, enhancing both diagnostic accuracy and accessibility globally. Future research should address identified limitations by increasing dataset diversity, adopting multilabel classification, implementing prospective and multicenter validations, and standardizing ground truth definitions. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.