SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2026
Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and prognosis of ocular trauma: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOcular trauma is a leading cause of acquired monocular blindness worldwide, requiring prompt and accurate diagnosis and prognosis. While artificial intelligence (AI) has shown growing potential in medicine, a comprehensive synthesis of its applications in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Ocular Trauma is still lacking. Therefore, this systematic review aims to comprehensively synthesize the current evidence on the diagnostic and prognostic performance of artificial intelligence in ocular trauma.
methodsThis study is a systematic review conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to May, 2025. Original studies using artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis or prognosis of ocular trauma, applying human clinical data, and reporting performance metrics were included. Review articles and animal studies were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted relevant data, and assessed the risk of bias using the PROBAST tool. Due to substantial heterogeneity among the included studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. This heterogeneity was primarily related to marked differences in outcome definitions, study designs, analytical models, and reported effect measures across studies. Specifically, the included studies employed diverse outcome metrics, used varying model types, and analyzed different data modalities, with effect estimates reported in non-comparable forms. As a result, quantitative pooling of data was not methodologically appropriate. Therefore, the findings were synthesized using a narrative approach. Heterogeneity was explored descriptively by examining the variability in reported AUC ranges across relevant subgroups, including outcome definitions, model types, and data modalities. Formal quantitative heterogeneity statistics were not calculated due to inconsistent reporting and insufficient data within subgroups.
resultsA total of 112 records were identified across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 10 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria and were systematically analyzed. These studies investigated different AI techniques applied to ocular trauma. Across the included studies, deep learning models such as DenseNet-169 and UNet demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (up to 96%) and Area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.99, while artificial neural networks (ANNs) outperformed traditional scoring systems like the Ocular Trauma Score (OTS) in prognostic prediction (accuracy up to 93%). ChatGPT-4 showed perfect diagnostic accuracy (100%) but a 30% inconsistency in treatment decisions. A narrative synthesis revealed that model performance varied by input data type, with image-based models generally outperforming those relying on clinical data alone.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that AI models, particularly deep learning and neural network architectures, can assist clinicians in rapid and accurate diagnosis, optimize triage decisions in emergency settings, and improve prognostic prediction of visual outcomes. Despite these promising results, challenges such as variability in data sources, lack of external validation, and ethical considerations persist. Future research should focus on multicenter validation, standardized datasets, and human–AI integration frameworks to facilitate clinical application. PROSPERO REGISTRATION CODE: CRD420251043768
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.