ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Development and Clinical Validation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Visual Acuity Testing System.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo develop and validate an automated visual acuity (VA) testing system integrating artificial intelligence (AI)-driven speech and image recognition technologies, enabling self-administered, clinic-based VA assessment; Methods: The system incorporated a fine-tuned Whisper speech-recognition model with Silero voice activity detection and pose estimation through facial landmark and ArUco marker detection. A state-driven interface guided users through sequential testing with and without a pinhole. Speech recognition was enhanced using a local Singaporean English dataset. Laboratory validation assessed speech and pose recognition performance, while clinical validation compared automated and manual VA testing at a tertiary eye clinic; Results: The fine-tuned model reduced word error rates from 17.83% to 9.81% for letters and 2.76% to 1.97% for numbers. Pose detection accurately identified valid occluder states. Among 72 participants (144 eyes), automated unaided VA showed good agreement with manual VA (ICC = 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.85), while pinhole VA demonstrated moderate agreement (ICC = 0.63, 95% CI 0.25-0.83). Automated testing took longer (132.1 ± 47.5 s vs. 97.1 ± 47.8 s;
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.