Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40453785›Full record

ReviewMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2025

Artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations.

Kimia Kazemzadeh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Systemic and ocular complications related to intravitreal administration of anti-VEGF agents.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kimia KazemzadehIVORC Academic Foundation (International Virtual Ophthalmic Research Center), Texas, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: By leveraging the imaging-rich nature of ophthalmology and optometry, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the vision sciences and addressing the global burden of ocular diseases. The ability of AI to analyze complex imaging and clinical data allows unprecedented improvements in diagnosis, management, and patient outcomes. In this narrative review, we explore the current and emerging opportunities of utilizing AI in the vision sciences, critically examine the associated challenges, and discuss the ethical implications of integrating AI into clinical practice. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar for English-language articles published from January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2025. Studies on AI applications in ophthalmology and optometry, focusing on diagnostic performance, clinical integration, and ethical considerations, were included, irrespective of study design (clinical trials, observational studies, validation studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Articles not related to the use of AI in vision care were excluded. Results: AI has achieved high diagnostic accuracy across different ocular domains. In terms of the cornea and anterior segment, AI models have detected keratoconus with sensitivity and accuracy exceeding 98% and 99.6%, respectively, including in subclinical cases, by analyzing Scheimpflug tomography and corneal biomechanics. For cataract surgery, machine learning-based intraocular lens power calculation formulas, such as the Kane and ZEISS AI formulas, reduce refractive errors, achieving mean absolute errors below 0.30 diopters and performing particularly well in highly myopic eyes. AI-based retinal screening systems, such as the EyeArt and IDx-DR, can autonomously detect diabetic retinopathy with sensitivities above 95%, while deep learning models can predict age-related macular degeneration progression with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve exceeding 0.90. In glaucoma detection, fundus and optical coherence tomography-based AI models have reached pooled sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90%, although performance varies with disease stage and population diversity. AI has also advanced strabismus detection, amblyopia risk prediction, and myopia progression forecasting by using facial analysis and biometric data. Currently, key challenges in implementing AI in ophthalmology include dataset bias, limited external validation, regulatory hurdles, and ethical issues, such as transparency and equitable access. Conclusions: AI is rapidly transforming vision sciences by improving diagnostic accuracy, streamlining clinical workflow, and broadening access to quality eye care, particularly in underserved regions. Its integration into ophthalmology and optometry thus holds significant promise for enhancing patient outcomes and optimizing healthcare delivery. However, to harness the transformative potential of AI fully, sustained multidisciplinary collaboration, involving clinicians, data scientists, ethicists, and policymakers, is essential. Rigorous validation processes, transparency in algorithm development, and strong ethical oversight are equally important to mitigate risks such as bias, data misuse, and unequal access. Responsible implementation of AI in the vision sciences is essential to ensure that all populations are served equitably.

Indexed as

AI (artificial intelligence)deepethical codeethical issuelearningmachinemachine intelligenceocular surgeryoptometriessciencesvision

Identifiers

PMID40453785
PMCPMC12121673

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.