ReviewFrontiers in ophthalmology2026
Artificial intelligence in corneal endothelial disease and endothelial keratoplasty: current evidence, clinical readiness, and future directions.
Review in Frontiers 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Corneal endothelial disease generates high-dimensional imaging and longitudinal data, making it well suited to artificial intelligence (AI). This review follows AI across the endothelial care pathway and judges each application by translational maturity rather than discrimination alone, drawing on a targeted PubMed/MEDLINE search of studies published between 2011 and July 2026. Technical performance is strongest when the task is measurement against a reproducible human reference: endothelial cell segmentation, image quality control, edema and pachymetric mapping, and quantification of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) detachment. However, performance declines as tasks become prognostic or when models cross devices, surgeons, and centers. External validation reduced the area under the curve from 0.96 to 0.77 in one Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) detection model, and a 2025 systematic review identified external validation in only three of 19 FECD studies. Calibration, uncertainty quantification, decision curve analysis, and prospective human-AI comparison remain uncommon. The most mature applications are therefore measurement and quality-control tasks, including automated donor endothelial cell density assessment in eye banking. FECD staging, prediction of decompensation after cataract surgery, the need for rebubbling (reinjection of air or gas into the anterior chamber to promote graft reattachment), rejection, and long-term graft survival remain investigational. By covering the full clinical pathway together with eye banking, regenerative therapies, foundation models, language models, an explicit clinical-readiness framework, and the European regulatory context, this review outlines the current requirements for clinical translation: multicenter external validation, transparent reporting, safe abstention, and prospective clinical impact studies.
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.