2023
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2454139/v1
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: Background and objective Pathologic 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. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and IEEE Xplore before November 20, 2022, for studies evaluating the performance of AI in the… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 35 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The studies included in this analysis varied in quality, ranging from high quality to low quality. This indicates that the research in the field of AI and ML in neuroregenerative medicine is still developing and diverse [38]. This variation in quality emphasizes the importance of implementing more rigorous and standardized methodological approaches in future studies to improve the reliability and validity of the findings [39,40].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The studies included in this analysis varied in quality, ranging from high quality to low quality. This indicates that the research in the field of AI and ML in neuroregenerative medicine is still developing and diverse [38]. This variation in quality emphasizes the importance of implementing more rigorous and standardized methodological approaches in future studies to improve the reliability and validity of the findings [39,40].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%