ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Artificial Intelligence Approaches for Geographic Atrophy Segmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-Based Segmentation of Geographic Atrophy: A Multi-Center, Multi-Device Validation in a Real-World Clinical Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geographic atrophy (GA) is a progressive retinal disease associated with late-stage age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a significant cause of visual impairment in senior adults. GA lesion segmentation is important for disease monitoring in clinical trials and routine ophthalmic practice; however, its manual delineation is time-consuming, laborious, and subject to inter-grader variability. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding within the medical field and could potentially improve accuracy while reducing the workload by facilitating this task. This systematic review evaluates the performance of AI algorithms for GA segmentation and highlights their key limitations from the literature. Five databases and two registries were searched from inception until 23 March 2024, following the PRISMA methodology. Twenty-four studies met the prespecified eligibility criteria, and fifteen were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.95), signifying a high agreement between the reference standards and model predictions. The risk of bias and reporting quality were assessed using QUADAS-2 and CLAIM tools. This review provides a comprehensive evaluation of AI applications for GA segmentation and identifies areas for improvement. The findings support the potential of AI to enhance clinical workflows and highlight pathways for improved future models that could bridge the gap between research settings and real-world clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.