ArticleScientific reports2026
Artificial intelligence based prediction of first recurrence in neovascular age related macular degeneration with validation by 19 experts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- The AI-Augmented Ophthalmologist for chronic ocular diseases: a patient-centered framework for human-AI collaboration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the value and difference in predictive performance between ophthalmologists and a previously developed and validated artificial intelligence (AI) model, and to evaluate how AI assistance influences expert decision-making in reliably assessing recurrence prediction of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment. 19 experts (nine retinal specialist ophthalmologists and ten non-retinal specialist ophthalmologists) predicted the first recurrence of nAMD within three months based on optical coherence tomography (OCT) images and clinical information. Predictions were made in five sessions with increasing information availability. The AI model used in this study had been developed and validated in our earlier work, and it predicted recurrence using baseline and after the loading phase OCT images. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Fleiss' kappa, and Delong's test between expert groups and the AI algorithm. The study included 149 eyes of 130 patients. The AI model achieved an AUROC of 0.744 (95% confidence interval, 0.665-0.822). Expert performance improved across sessions, with AUROCs ranging from 0.562 ± 0.034 to 0.679 ± 0.049. No significant differences were observed between expert groups based on experience or subspecialty. AI-supported decisions showed slightly improved performance in predicting nAMD recurrence compared to human experts, regardless of clinical experience. These results suggest the potential of AI-assistance in predicting recurrence and optimizing treatment strategies for nAMD, which could significantly improve patient counseling and management. This study also highlights the novel contribution of evaluating the impact of AI assistance on ophthalmologists' decision-making in nAMD recurrence prediction.
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.