ReviewCureus2026
Cross-Domain Diagnostic Performance of Analytical and Artificial Intelligence-Based Methods: A Systematic Review With Emphasis on Ophthalmic Imaging.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review adopts a cross-domain analytical perspective to evaluate the diagnostic performance and clinical applicability of data-driven and artificial intelligence-based methods across multiple biomedical domains, with particular emphasis on ophthalmic imaging. Rather than focusing on a single disease category, the review compares how methodological characteristics influence diagnostic accuracy and translational utility across heterogeneous clinical contexts. A literature search was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including studies published since 2015. Study selection was guided by predefined eligibility criteria requiring original research reporting primary data, with a clearly defined study design, population or dataset, analytical methods, and measurable diagnostic outcomes. Studies lacking sufficient methodological detail or quantitative outcome reporting, as well as non-primary research studies, were not considered. A total of 11 studies were included, spanning ophthalmic imaging, biomarker-based diagnosis, behavioural and cognitive assessment, vascular disease, and experimental applications. High diagnostic performance was consistently observed in imaging-based screening domains, with sensitivity and specificity frequently exceeding 90%, while moderate but clinically meaningful performance was reported in biomarker-driven and cognitive domains. These findings indicate that analytical approaches provide the greatest clinical utility when aligned with specific healthcare objectives and implementation contexts. Integration of quantitative performance with translational relevance offers a structured framework to support clinical adoption and future methodological development.
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.