ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2025
AI-assisted automated interpretation of corneal topography in orthokeratology patients: enhancing diagnostic precision and efficiency.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimTo evaluate the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) for automating corneal topography interpretation in orthokeratology patients, aiming to enhance diagnostic precision, efficiency, and clinical decision-making in myopia management.
methodsThe 1469 corneal topography images from 582 eyes of 326 myopic children treated with orthokeratology lenses over 47mo were collected. Each sample was categorized by decentration, treatment zone size, shape variation, and eye laterality. A multi-task AI model was developed to predict these parameters, with performance measured using area under curve (AUC), accuracy, and F1 scores. We compared AI-only, human-only, and combined Human+AI approaches on a subset of 100 images. External validation with images from additional hospitals tested model generalizability.
resultsThe model achieved high accuracy in eye-side prediction (AUC 0.95) and AUC values of 0.52-0.74 for decentration, treatment zone, and shape variation tasks. The combined Human+AI method outperformed AI-only and human-only approaches, achieving the highest accuracy (up to 87%) and fastest processing time (80ms). External validation confirmed robust performance in simple tasks, though accuracy was lower for complex classifications due to imaging variations.
conclusionAI provides efficient routine corneal topography assessments, while complex cases benefit most from a Human+AI approach, particularly in scenarios requiring nuanced clinical interpretation. The model currently functions as an assistive tool.
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.