ArticleOphthalmology2026
Reference Standard for Validation of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Screening Algorithms.
Article in Ophthalmology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeArtificial intelligence (AI)-based screening models hold promise for identifying individuals with undiagnosed age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in nonspecialist settings. A standardized reference framework for image labeling is needed to enable consistent training, validation, and deployment of AI-based screening algorithms. The goal of the present study was to establish expert consensus on an image-based reference standard for labeling AMD.
designModified Delphi consensus study.
participantsFellowship-trained retina specialists, ophthalmologists, AI specialists, and imaging specialists.
methodsA prespecified Delphi process was conducted using structured surveys. Over 2 rounds, panelists assessed opinions on existing reference standards, including the Age-Related Eye Disease Study scale and Beckman scale, as well as imaging methods such as color, OCT, and autofluorescence. The surveys also evaluated imaging features of AMD, including drusen, pseudodrusen, and pigment changes, as well as referral criteria. Consensus was defined using a 9-point Likert scale, with predefined statistical thresholds for agreement.
main outcome measuresAgreement on key elements of a reference standard.
resultsConsensus was reached on adopting the Beckman classification as the level 1 reference standard (median score, 8; agreement). OCT use for identifying key AMD features, including drusen, geographic atrophy (GA), and choroidal neovascularization, also reached consensus (median scores, 8.5-9; agreement). Pigment change detection did not reach consensus (median, 7.5; uncertain), and screening age thresholds showed nonconsensus (median, 8; uncertain). Referral thresholds reached consensus, including urgent referral for neovascular AMD and nonurgent referral for GA and intermediate AMD (median, 9; agreement).
conclusionsThis study defined a consensus-based reference standard for labeling AMD from images for AI-based screening. These recommendations are intended to support consistent AI model development and evaluation, while remaining distinct from clinical practice guidelines. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.