TRV-2026-1490Version 1 · Certified

Written 2026-10-15 22:01:37 UTC · current record

Reason for this version

Certified into the record

Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-1490
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-10-15T22:01:37.979022Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: health
headline: Artificial Intelligence in Eye Disease: A Systematic Review of Screening, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Treatment-Response Prediction, and Clinical Decision Support
dek: Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding eye care beyond image-based detection toward prognosis, treatment-response prediction, monitoring, triage, and clinician-facing decision support. We evaluated AI across eye-disease screening, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment response, and decision support, emphasizing validation, explainability, and clinical readiness. Methods: This PROSPERO-registered review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 20…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: Eye-disease AI is not yet clinically ready: independent validation is incomplete, direct clinician comparators are scarce, and safety, workflow and patient-outcome evidence is sparse.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: Eye-disease AI is not yet clinically ready: independent validation is incomplete, direct clinician comparators are scarce, and safety, workflow and patient-outcome evidence is sparse.
problem_evidence: translation remains limited by heterogeneous outcomes, incomplete independent validation, few direct comparators, and sparse evaluation of safety, workflow effects, and patient outcomes
quick_read: A PROSPERO-registered systematic review following PRISMA 2020 mapped the literature on AI in eye care from 2015 through August 2026. It covered 270 studies across screening, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment-response prediction and clinical decision support, with diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema the largest area.

The review matters because it shows ophthalmic AI moving beyond image detection toward clinical management, yet the evidence for real-world use is uneven. Because study heterogeneity ruled out meta-analysis, the review cannot provide pooled performance estimates, and the effects on safety, workflows and patient outcomes remain largely untested.
limitation: Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and the authors report incomplete independent validation, few direct comparators and sparse evaluation of safety, workflow effects and patient outcomes.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: The evidence base comprised 270 studies, with diabetic retinopathy/diabetic macular oedema the largest clinical area at 82 studies. | Glaucoma accounted for 46 studies, retinal/multi-disease AI for 52, and AMD/macular disease for 29. | Convolutional neural network or convolutional deep learning was the largest primary method group, with 136 studies. | External validation was confirmed in 130 studies, but only 49 had a strict direct clinical comparator. | Explicit optometry or optometrist involvement appeared in only three studies.
rundown: The authors searched six databases plus supplementary routes for English-language literature published between 1 January 2015 and 10 August 2026. Included studies received design-mapped Joanna Briggs Institute or adapted item-level appraisal.

Of the 130 studies with confirmed external validation, 95 had a clinical, geographic, prospective or real-world external-validation component. Of these, 86 were clinical-only and nine mixed clinical and technical validation.

Ninety studies used explainability methods, and 30 involved pediatric or pediatric-relevant evidence. The authors emphasize validation, explainability and clinical readiness as the criteria for assessing translation.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Journal of Clinical Medicine | https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15207957 | 2026-10-14
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
sha256
9e37524a4057909f0403a607b97927883475573a5d39b53c9b97963ffc882758
previous
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1490 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.