ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
AI-Assisted Detection of Macular OCT Abnormalities by Optometrists: A Retrospective Reader Study.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a key imaging modality for diagnosing retinal disease, but accurate interpretation may require specialist expertise. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted OCT has the potential to enhance detection of retinal abnormalities in clinical practice. However, evidence on how AI decision-support tools influence optometrist diagnostic performance in real-world OCT interpretation remains limited. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of an AI-integrated OCT interpretation tool, CIRRUS® PathFinder™ (PF), on optometrists' ability to detect retinal abnormalities on macular OCT scans compared with an expert ophthalmologist reference standard. Methods: This retrospective diagnostic accuracy reader study analyzed 200 anonymized macular OCT B-scans from 200 patients at a retinal clinic in Singapore. All scans met pre-specified signal strength criteria. Two optometrists independently classified scans as normal or abnormal under unaided and PF-assisted conditions, and classifications were then compared with an expert ophthalmologist reference standard. Diagnostic performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy, were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and agreement with the expert grader was assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ). Changes in paired classifications were evaluated using McNemar's exact test. Results: Of the 200 scans, 73 (36.5%) were classified as abnormal by the expert. PF assistance increased abnormality detection and substantially reduced false negative classifications. Sensitivity improved from 61.6% (95% CI 49.5-72.8) to 98.6% (95% CI 92.6-100.0) for Optometrist A (p<2.0x10 Conclusion: AI-assisted OCT interpretation with PF improved optometrists' sensitivity for detecting expert-confirmed macular OCT abnormalities, primarily by reducing false-negative classifications. Further prospective studies in broader clinical settings are needed to determine the impact on referral appropriateness, workflow efficiency, reader behavior and patient outcomes.
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.