4.6 Review

Performances of artificial intelligence in detecting pathologic myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

EYE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-023-02551-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis and systematic review showed that current AI algorithms have excellent performance in detecting PM and related complications based on fundus and OCT images.
Background/ObjectivePathologic myopia (PM) is a major cause of severe visual impairment and blindness, and current applications of artificial intelligence (AI) have covered the diagnosis and classification of PM. This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to evaluate the overall performance of AI-based models in detecting PM and related complications.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and IEEE Xplore for eligible studies before Dec 20, 2022. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). We calculated the pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE) and the summary area under the curve (AUC) using a random effects model, to evaluate the performance of AI in the detection of PM based on fundus or optical coherence tomography (OCT) images.Results22 studies were included in the systematic review, and 14 of them were included in the quantitative analysis. Of all included studies, SEN and SPE ranged from 80.0% to 98.7% and from 79.5% to 100.0% for PM detection, respectively. For the detection of PM, the summary AUC was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 0.99), and the pooled SEN and SPE were 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.96) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.98), respectively. For the detection of PM-related choroid neovascularization (CNV), the summary AUC was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99).ConclusionOur review demonstrated the excellent performance of current AI algorithms in detecting PM and related complications based on fundus and OCT images.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据