The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A global review of publicly available datasets for ophthalmological imaging: barriers to access, usability, and generalisability
Open accessAbstract
Health data that are publicly available are valuable resources for digital health research. Several public datasets containing ophthalmological imaging have been frequently used in machine learning research; however, the total number of datasets containing ophthalmological health information and their respective content is unclear. This Review aimed to identify all publicly available ophthalmological imaging datasets, detail their accessibility, describe which diseases and populations are represented, and report on the completeness of the associated metadata. With the use of MEDLINE, Google's search engine, and Google Dataset Search, we identified 94 open access datasets containing 507 724 images and 125 videos from 122 364 patients. Most datasets originated from Asia, North America, and Europe. Disease populations were unevenly represented, with glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and age-related macular degeneration disproportionately overrepresented in comparison with other eye diseases. The reporting of basic demographic characteristics such as age, sex, and ethnicity was poor, even at the aggregate level. This Review provides greater visibility for ophthalmological datasets that are publicly available as powerful resources for research. Our paper also exposes an increasing divide in the representation of different population and disease groups in health data repositories. The improved reporting of metadata would enable researchers to access the most appropriate datasets for their needs and maximise the potential of such resources.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21056 · Cited by 14,362
Gulshan, V., Peng, L., Coram, M., Stumpe, M. C., Wu, D., Narayanaswamy, A., Venugopalan, S., Widner, K., Madams, T., Cuadros, J., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17216 · Cited by 7,697
Identifying Medical Diagnoses and Treatable Diseases by Image-Based Deep Learning
Kermany, D. S., Goldbaum, M., Cai, W., Valentim, C. C. S., Liang, H., Baxter, S. L., McKeown, A., Yang, G., Wu, X., Yan, F., et al. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.010 · Cited by 4,842
Flaxman, S. R., Bourne, R. R. A., Resnikoff, S., Ackland, P., Braithwaite, T., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J., Kempen, J. H., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30393-5 · Cited by 3,477
International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening
McKinney, S. M., Sieniek, M., Godbole, V., Godwin, J., Antropova, N., Ashrafian, H., Back, T., Chesus, M., Corrado, G. S., Darzi, A., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6 · Cited by 3,287
Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence
Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G., & King, D. (2019) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2 · Cited by 3,136
Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease
De Fauw, J., Ledsam, J. R., Romera-Paredes, B., Nikolov, S., Tomasev, N., Blackwell, S., Askham, H., Glorot, X., O’Donoghue, B., Visentin, D., et al. (2018) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0107-6 · Cited by 2,639
Self-citationGebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., & Crawford, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.09010 · Cited by 2,474
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., III, H. D., & Crawford, K. (2021) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3458723 · Cited by 2,469
Liu, X., Faes, L., Kale, A. U., Wagner, S. K., Fu, D. J., Bruynseels, A., Mahendiran, T., Moraes, G., Shamdas, M., Kern, C., et al. (2019) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30123-2 · Cited by 1,883
Self-citation
Cited by
The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020
Burton, M. J., Ramke, J., Marques, A. P., Bourne, R. R. A., Congdon, N., Jones, I., Ah Tong, B. A. M., Arunga, S., Bachani, D., Bascaran, C., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30488-5 · Cited by 1,624
Self-citationAlgorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence for medicine and healthcare
Chen, R. J., Wang, J. J., Williamson, D. F. K., Chen, T. Y., Lipkova, J., Lu, M. Y., Sahai, S., & Mahmood, F. (2023) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-023-01056-8 · Cited by 750
Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities—A global review
Celi, L. A., Cellini, J., Charpignon, M.-L., Dee, E. C., Dernoncourt, F., Eber, R., Mitchell, W. G., Moukheiber, L., Schirmer, J., Situ, J., et al. (2022) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000022 · Cited by 576
Health data poverty: an assailable barrier to equitable digital health care
Ibrahim, H., Liu, X., Zariffa, N., Morris, A. D., & Denniston, A. K. (2021) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30317-4 · Cited by 326
Self-citationThe value of standards for health datasets in artificial intelligence-based applications
Arora, A., Alderman, J. E., Palmer, J., Ganapathi, S., Laws, E., McCradden, M. D., Oakden-Rayner, L., Pfohl, S. R., Ghassemi, M., McKay, F., et al. (2023) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02608-w · Cited by 294
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Khan, S. M., Liu, X., Nath, S., Korot, E., Faes, L., Wagner, S. K., Keane, P. A., Sebire, N. J., Burton, M. J., & Denniston, A. K.
- Venue
- The Lancet Digital Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e51-e66
- ISSN
- 2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3089653673
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 16.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A global review of publicly available datasets for ophthalmological imaging: barriers to access, usability, and generalisability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30240-5
- The paper
- Khan, S. M., Liu, X., Nath, S., Korot, E., Faes, L., Wagner, S. K., Keane, P. A., Sebire, N. J., Burton, M. J., & Denniston, A. K. (2021). A global review of publicly available datasets for ophthalmological imaging: barriers to access, usability, and generalisability. The Lancet Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30240-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
