Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41532028›Full record

ReviewAdvances in ophthalmology practice and research

A systematic review of vision and vision-language foundation models in ophthalmology.

Kai Jin, Tao Yu, Gui-Shuang Ying, Zongyuan Ge, Kelvin Zhenghao Li, Yukun Zhou, Danli Shi, Meng Wang, Polat Goktas, Andrzej Grzybowski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in ophthalmology practice and research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors.

Kai JinEye Center of the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Tao YuEye Center of the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Gui-Shuang YingCenter for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Zongyuan GeAIM for Health Lab, Faculty of IT, Monash University, Australia.
Kelvin Zhenghao LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Yukun ZhouInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Danli ShiSchool of Optometry, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
Meng WangCentre for Innovation and Precision Eye Health, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Polat GoktasFaculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University, Türkiye.
Andrzej GrzybowskiInstitute for Research in Ophthalmology, Foundation for Ophthalmology Development, Poznan, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vision and vision-language foundation models, a subset of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) frameworks, have shown transformative potential in various medical fields. In ophthalmology, these models, particularly large language models and vision-based models, have demonstrated great potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, enhance treatment planning, and streamline clinical workflows. However, their deployment in ophthalmology has faced several challenges, particularly regarding generalizability and integration into clinical practice. This systematic review aims to summarize the current evidence on the use of vision and vision-language foundation models in ophthalmology, identifying key applications, outcomes, and challenges. Main text: A comprehensive search on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify studies published between January 2020 and July 2025. Studies were included if they developed or applied foundation models, such as vision-based models and large language models, to clinically relevant ophthalmic applications. A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria, covering areas such as retinal diseases, glaucoma, and ocular surface tumor. The primary outcome measures are model performance metrics, integration into clinical workflows, and the clinical utility of the models. Additionally, the review explored the limitations of foundation models, such as the reliance on large datasets, computational resources, and interpretability challenges.The majority of studies demonstrated that foundation models could achieve high diagnostic accuracy, with several reports indicating excellent performance comparable to or exceeding those of experienced clinicians. Foundation models achieved high accuracy rates up to 95% for diagnosing retinal diseases, and similar performances for detecting glaucoma progression. Despite promising results, concerns about algorithmic bias, overfitting, and the need for diverse training data were common. High computational demands, EHR compatibility, and the need for clinician validation also posed challenges. Additionally, model interpretability issues hindered clinician trust and adoption. Conclusions: Vision and vision-language foundation models in ophthalmology show significant potential for advancing diagnostic accuracy and treatment strategies, particularly in retinal diseases, glaucoma, and ocular oncology. However, challenges such as data quality, transparency, and ethical considerations must be addressed. Future research should focus on refining model performance, improving interpretability and generalizability, and exploring strategies for integrating these models into routine clinical practice to maximize their impact in clinical ophthalmology.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceClinical integrationOphthalmologyVision foundation modelsVision-language models

Identifiers

PMID41532028
PMCPMC12794246

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.