ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Improving support and self-management of ophthalmic patients using an artificial intelligence health coach.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates patient engagement and satisfaction with Everyday Medical Monitoring Ally (E.M.M.A), a purpose-trained artificial intelligence (AI)-powered health coach delivered via WhatsApp. E.M.M.A integrates AI-driven symptom tracking, personalized medical information, and lifestyle guidance to support eye health management in a real-world clinical setting. This pilot study enrolled patients from a UK-based ophthalmology clinic managing chronic eye conditions. Patient interactions with E.M.M.A were logged over a 2-month period. Data collected included chat frequency, temporal patterns, and interaction modality (text or audio). A post-study satisfaction survey was conducted. Human validation of AI-generated question-answer pairs was performed independently by two glaucoma consultants. Ninety-one patients consented to participate, of whom 83 interacted with E.M.M.A, generating 446 analyzed chat sessions. Audio interactions accounted for 28% of chats. A subgroup of 39 users (42%) generated nearly 75% of all chats, while 52% of users were repeat users. Most patient queries related to general eye health and symptoms, comprising 39% of questions. Symptom-related content accounted for 26% of response classifications. The satisfaction survey was completed by 66 users, with 88% reporting being satisfied or very satisfied. A total of 65% would definitely recommend E.M.M.A, while 9% reported mild to moderate anxiety during use. Human expert validation scores exceeded 95% across all assessed domains. Qualitative feedback indicated acceptance of E.M.M.A as a reassuring and valuable adjunct when immediate clinical support was unavailable. AI-driven health coaches such as E.M.M.A may help bridge gaps in ophthalmic care between clinical visits by providing continuous, personalized, and medical record-informed patient support.
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.