SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Artificial intelligence for pathologic myopia classification based on the META-PM system: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown considerable potential for pathologic myopia (PM) detection, yet its overall diagnostic performance under the META-PM classification framework remains uncertain. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Embase up to February 10, 2026. Studies applying deep learning models for PM classification using the META-PM system were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) analyses were calculated. Twelve studies were eligible for the systematic review, of which ten were included in the meta-analysis. Results: For referable PM detection, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99), respectively. For PM classification, the pooled macro-area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) reached 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00), indicating excellent overall diagnostic performance. Fagan nomogram analysis demonstrated favorable post-test probabilities across different clinical scenarios. The meta-regression identified external validation and image input resolution as significant sources of heterogeneity across studies. Conclusion: Overall, AI demonstrates outstanding performance for automated PM detection and grading under the META-PM framework. Future studies should focus on multicenter external validation, prospective clinical evaluation, and integration with emerging ultra-widefield imaging technologies to facilitate real- world implementation in primary eye-care screening and risk stratification systems. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261351134.
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.