Pucchio A, Krance SH, Pur DR, Bhatti J, Bassi A, Manichavagan K, Brahmbhatt S, Aggarwal I, Singh P, Virani A, Stanley M, Miranda RN, Felfeli T. Applications of artificial intelligence and bioinformatics methodologies in the analysis of ocular biofluid markers: a scoping review.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2024;
262:1041-1091. [PMID:
37421481 DOI:
10.1007/s00417-023-06100-6]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Revised: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 05/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/10/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE
This scoping review summarizes the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and bioinformatics methodologies in analysis of ocular biofluid markers. The secondary objective was to explore supervised and unsupervised AI techniques and their predictive accuracies. We also evaluate the integration of bioinformatics with AI tools.
METHODS
This scoping review was conducted across five electronic databases including EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science from inception to July 14, 2021. Studies pertaining to biofluid marker analysis using AI or bioinformatics were included.
RESULTS
A total of 10,262 articles were retrieved from all databases and 177 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly studied ocular diseases were diabetic eye diseases, with 50 papers (28%), while glaucoma was explored in 25 studies (14%), age-related macular degeneration in 20 (11%), dry eye disease in 10 (6%), and uveitis in 9 (5%). Supervised learning was used in 91 papers (51%), unsupervised AI in 83 (46%), and bioinformatics in 85 (48%). Ninety-eight papers (55%) used more than one class of AI (e.g. > 1 of supervised, unsupervised, bioinformatics, or statistical techniques), while 79 (45%) used only one. Supervised learning techniques were often used to predict disease status or prognosis, and demonstrated strong accuracy. Unsupervised AI algorithms were used to bolster the accuracy of other algorithms, identify molecularly distinct subgroups, or cluster cases into distinct subgroups that are useful for prediction of the disease course. Finally, bioinformatic tools were used to translate complex biomarker profiles or findings into interpretable data.
CONCLUSION
AI analysis of biofluid markers displayed diagnostic accuracy, provided insight into mechanisms of molecular etiologies, and had the ability to provide individualized targeted therapeutic treatment for patients. Given the progression of AI towards use in both research and the clinic, ophthalmologists should be broadly aware of the commonly used algorithms and their applications. Future research may be aimed at validating algorithms and integrating them in clinical practice.
Collapse