Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 28, 2026

Author Spotlight: Addressing Technical and Subjective Challenges in Measuring Classroom Attention
Published on: December 15, 2023
Vitreoretinal disease detection using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zahra Heidari1,2, Masoud Mirghorbani3, Mahdi Abounoori4
1Department of Ophthalmology, Bu-Ali Sina Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. zheidar1@lakeheadu.ca.
Introduction:
Early detection of vitreoretinal diseases (VRDs) is critical for preventing vision loss, and currently relies on the examination and interpretation of multimodal imaging techniques. Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a powerful tool to detect abnormalities in vitreoretinal morphology and ideally detect changes at earlier stages to allow for intervention. This meta-analysis evaluates and summarizes the diagnostic performance of AI models in the detection of VRDs using retinal imaging systems.
Methods:
This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023450207). A comprehensive electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted by three independent reviewers up to August 2023. Study validity was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, which evaluates risk of bias across four domains and applicability concerns across three domains. Eligible articles were categorized into nine VRD subgroups-age related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, retinal vascular diseases, retinal dystrophies, Cystoid macular edema, vitreoretinal interface disorders, retinal detachment, Central serous chorioretinopathy, and myopic retinopathy-and included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimates of accuracy (PEA), sensitivity (PESen), and specificity (PESpe) were calculated for all selected studies.
Results:
A total of 195 studies were included in the final analysis, yielding an overall PEA of 95.76% (95% CI: 95.0-96.47), PESen of 91.94% (95% CI: 90.72-93.08) and PESpe of 96.09% (95% CI: 95.27-96.79). In the subgroup analysis, most AI models had a PEA > 90%, especially convolutional neural networks (CNN), followed by support vector machine (SVM) and random forest (RF).
Conclusions:
AI diagnostic tools, particularly CNNs, have demonstrated robust performance in VRDs detection. However, results from studies with limited generalizability should be applied cautiously in real-world settings. Further exploration of emerging models, such as large language models (LLMs), is recommended.
Related Concept Videos
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Review and Preview
Intelligence
Directing Effect of Substituents: meta-Directing Groups
Measures of Intelligence
Validity refers to how well a test measures what it claims to measure. An intelligence test should accurately assess intelligence rather than another characteristic, like anxiety. Criterion validity is one way to evaluate this;...
Random and Systematic Errors

