ArticleOphthalmology science
A Practical Guide to Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Imaging Models in Scientific Literature.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes of Anti-VEGF Therapy in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Minimum reporting elements for ophthalmic vision-language model studies.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Reply.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Re: McCarthy et al: A Practical Guide to Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Imaging Models in Scientific Literature.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Trochlear Nerve Palsy: A Systematic Review of Etiologies and Diagnostic Insights.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are revolutionizing ophthalmology by enhancing diagnostic accuracy, treatment planning, and patient management. However, a significant gap remains in practical guidance for ophthalmologists who lack AI expertise to effectively analyze these technologies and assess their readiness for integration into clinical practice. This paper aims to bridge this gap by demystifying AI model design and providing practical recommendations for evaluating AI imaging models in research publications. Design: Educational review: synthesizing key considerations for evaluating AI papers in ophthalmology. Participants: This paper draws on insights from an interdisciplinary team of ophthalmologists and AI experts with experience in developing and evaluating AI models for clinical applications. Methods: A structured framework was developed based on expert discussions and a review of key methodological considerations in AI research. Main Outcome Measures: A stepwise approach to evaluating AI models in ophthalmology, providing clinicians with practical strategies for assessing AI research. Results: This guide offers broad recommendations applicable across ophthalmology and medicine. Conclusions: As the landscape of health care continues to evolve, proactive engagement with AI will empower clinicians to lead the way in innovation while concurrently prioritizing patient safety and quality of care. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.