Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40892792›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Detecting papilloedema as a marker of raised intracranial pressure using artificial intelligence: A systematic review.

Lekaashree Rambabu, Thomas Edmiston, Brandon G Smith, Katharina Kohler, Angelos G Kolias, Richard A I Bethlehem, Pearse A Keane, Hani J Marcus, EyeVu Consortium, Peter J Hutchinson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

11 authors.

Lekaashree RambabuDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3556-4167
Thomas EdmistonSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9071-0568
Brandon G SmithNIHR Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8471-1368
Katharina KohlerNIHR Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Angelos G KoliasNIHR Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Richard A I BethlehemDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Pearse A KeaneInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hani J MarcusWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
EyeVu ConsortiumNIHR Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Peter J HutchinsonNIHR Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Tom BashfordNIHR Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0228-9779

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated detection of papilloedema using artificial intelligence (AI) and retinal images acquired through an ophthalmoscope for triage of patients with potential intracranial pathology could prove to be beneficial, particularly in resource-limited settings where access to neuroimaging may be limited. However, a comprehensive overview of the current literature on this field is lacking. We conducted a systematic review on the use of AI for papilloedema detection by searching four databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. Included studies were assessed for quality of reporting using the Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging and appraised using a novel 5-domain rubric, 'SMART', for the presence of bias. For a subset of studies, we also assessed the diagnostic test accuracy using the 'Metadta' command on Stata. Nineteen deep learning systems and eight non-deep learning systems were included. The median number of images of normal optic discs used in the training set was 2509 (IQR 580-9156) and in the testing set was 569 (IQR 119-1378). The number of papilloedema images in the training and testing sets was lower with a median of 1292 (IQR 201-2882) in training set and 201 (IQR 57-388) in the testing set. Age and gender were the two most frequently reported demographic data, included by one-third of the studies. Only ten studies performed external validation. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated to be 0.87 [95% CI 0.76-0.93] and 0.90 [95% CI 0.74-0.97], respectively. Though AI model performance values are reported to be high, these results need to be interpreted with caution due highly biased data selection, poor quality of reporting, and limited evidence of reproducibility. Deep learning models show promise in retinal image analysis of papilloedema, however, external validation using large, diverse datasets in a variety of clinical settings is required before it can be considered a tool for triage of intracranial pathologies in resource-limited areas.

Identifiers

PMID40892792
PMCPMC12404415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.