ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Comprehensive Review Comparing Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Diagnostic Approaches for Dry Eye Disease.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Dry Eye Disease: From Mechanisms to Management and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in ophthalmology, with a focus on diagnosing dry eye disease (DED). We aim to synthesize studies that explicitly compare AI-based diagnostic models with clinical tests employed by ophthalmologists, examine results obtained using similar imaging modalities, and identify recurring limitations to propose recommendations for future work. We conducted a systematic literature search following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines across four databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library. We targeted studies published between 2020 and 2025 and applied predefined inclusion criteria to select 30 original peer-reviewed articles. We then analyzed each study based on the AI models used, development strategies, diagnostic performance, correlation with clinical parameters, and reported limitations. The imaging modalities covered include videokeratography, smartphone-based imaging, tear film interferometry, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, infrared meibography, in vivo confocal microscopy, and slit-lamp photography. Across modalities, deep learning models (e.g., U-shaped Convolutional Network (U-Net), Residual Network (ResNet), Densely Connected Convolutional Network (DenseNet), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), transformers) demonstrated promising performance, often matching or surpassing clinical assessments, with reported accuracies ranging from 82% to 99%. However, few studies performed external validations or addressed inter-expert variability. The findings confirm AI's potential in DED diagnosis, but emphasize gaps in data diversity, clinical use, and reproducibility. It offers practical recommendations for future research to bridge these gaps and support AI deployment in routine eye care.
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.