ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology2025
Development and Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model to Set Target IOP for Glaucoma.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in glaucoma diagnosis and management: Has its time come?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Next-generation smart ophthalmic biomaterials: From passive response to active interaction and closed-loop control.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDevelop an artificial intelligence (AI) model to predict a personalized target intraocular pressure (IOP) for eyes with glaucoma. Compare the impact of achieving the AI-predicted, clinician-defined, and society guideline-based target IOP on rates of visual field (VF) worsening.
designDevelopment and evaluation of an AI treatment algorithm SUBJECTS: A dataset of 14,871 eyes with a defined target IOP (set by glaucoma specialists during routine clinical care) and baseline OCT, VF, and clinical measurements. A non-overlapping progression dataset of 10,559 eyes with longitudinal VF testing (≥ 5 reliable tests).
methodsWe trained and tested a machine-learning model on the dataset of eyes with baseline structural, functional, and clinical data to predict a target IOP for each eye in the progression dataset. Linear models estimated the effect of mean target difference (measured IOP - target IOP) on the rate of VF worsening, defined by mean deviation (MD) slope. The effect of deviations from AI targets was compared to deviations from clinician-set targets and targets from society-based guidelines by the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS). Linear models also estimated the effect of mean absolute IOP on the rate of VF worsening. The effect of mean target difference (AI, clinician, or COS) was compared to the effect of mean absolute IOP.
main outcome measuresEffect of 1 mm Hg increase in mean target difference (AI, clinician, or COS) on the rate of MD worsening (dB/year).
resultsThe AI model achieved a mean absolute error of 2.28 mm Hg for predicting target IOP. AI and clinician target differences had similar effects on VF outcomes (0.032 dB/year vs 0.026 dB/year faster rate of MD worsening per 1 mm Hg increase, respectively, p = 0.09). AI and clinician target difference had greater effects than COS target difference (0.011 dB/year faster per 1 mm Hg increase, p < 0.001) and mean absolute IOP (0.001 dB/year faster per 1 mm Hg increase, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAI models can set target IOP with comparable performance to glaucoma specialists and are superior to utilizing mean IOP or society-based guidelines to set targets. Further work is needed to assess the clinical impact of AI-based target IOP guidance for patients managed by non-glaucoma specialists.
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.