Background: Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly moving from retrospective model development into prospective evaluation, implementation, and routine care. Existing reviews have addressed specific aspects of this transition, including monitoring, drift, implementation, governance, and human–AI interaction; however, these bodies of work remain methodologically and conceptually fragmented across different review traditions. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of review-level and review-oriented literature. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from database inception to 28 February 2026. We charted review characteristics and conducted an inductive thematic synthesis of extracted review-level findings, while distinguishing operational, deployment-proximal, methodological, and conceptual/governance-oriented evidence. Results: We included 25 review-level publications spanning systematic, scoping, methodological, narrative, and governance-oriented reviews. Three major themes emerged. First, clinically important risks were consistently framed as socio-technical rather than purely algorithmic: trustworthiness depended not only on technical performance, but also on fairness, transparency, workflow fit, human oversight, and organisational readiness. Second, the included review literature consistently recommended post-deployment monitoring but showed limited operational maturity; monitoring methods, action thresholds, fairness surveillance, and corrective responses were weakly standardised, and mature evidence from activated systems in routine care remained sparse. Third, trustworthy implementation was increasingly framed as a lifecycle governance challenge extending beyond procurement and initial validation to include local validation, subgroup auditing, drift detection, controlled updating, incident response, and, where necessary, rollback or retirement. Discussion: The review literature suggests a persistent normative–operational gap, meaning that recommendations about what trustworthy clinical AI should require have advanced faster than evidence on how monitoring, updating, and governance are implemented in routine care. The strongest unresolved challenge is therefore not principal generation alone, but the translation of monitoring and governance expectations into actionable operational systems. Conclusions: Post-development trustworthiness in clinical AI should be understood as a lifecycle property, not a one-time technical achievement. Future work should prioritise stronger operational evidence, clearer reporting of deployment-proximal and post-deployment evaluation, methodological standardisation of monitoring metrics and thresholds, implementation research on feasible governance models, and evaluation frameworks for assessing post-deployment safety, fairness, accountability, and sustainability.

Background/Objectives: Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly moving from proof-of-concept development into clinical evaluation, regulatory review, and routine care. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise empirical evidence on clinical AI evaluation after model development, focusing on deployment-related robustness, post-development monitoring, and lifecycle oversight in practice. Methods: We conducted a scoping review in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and reported findings using PRISMA-ScR. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched with no lower date restriction within each database’s available indexed coverage and with a common upper search date of 28 February 2026. Searches were supplemented by backward and forward citation tracking. Grey literature, preprint servers, and regulatory databases were not systematically searched because eligibility was restricted to full-text, peer-reviewed empirical studies and empirically grounded implementation or monitoring reports. Findings were synthesised using descriptive evidence mapping and inductive thematic synthesis. Results: Eighteen studies or empirically grounded reports were included. Evidence was organised into five strata: direct live or post-deployment monitoring studies; near-live bridge studies generating prospective outputs without guiding care; methodological monitoring and maintenance studies; deployment-relevant robustness and predeployment safety studies; and governance, implementation, readiness, and human-factors studies. Three themes emerged: trustworthiness after development was conditional and context-dependent; algorithmovigilance extended beyond aggregate performance tracking to include operational, workflow, fairness, contextual, and user-feedback signals; monitoring was more actionable when linked to corrective pathways, governance structures, and institutional readiness. Sociotechnical failures included automation-bias signals, workflow burden, reasoning–conclusion misalignment, and workflow-fit problems. Conclusions: Post-development clinical AI evaluation remains a layered and emerging field rather than a mature monitoring literature. Direct live evidence is limited, concentrated in high-income settings, and weighted towards radiology. The findings should be interpreted as synthesis-informed rather than as empirically validated standards for lifecycle oversight.

Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being evaluated for ophthalmic diagnosis, screening, and triage, yet its role in paediatric eye care remains less established than in adult ophthalmology. This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence on AI-enabled tools for paediatric ophthalmic diagnosis, screening, triage, surveillance, and referral, with an emphasis on diagnostic performance, safety, workflow integration, equity, and implementation readiness in primary, community, and primary care-relevant settings. Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore from inception to 30 March 2026. Eligible studies evaluated AI or machine-learning tools for children and adolescents aged 0–18 years in relation to paediatric eye conditions. Study selection and data extraction were undertaken independently by reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus or third-reviewer adjudication. Methodological and reporting quality was evaluated using an author-adapted six-domain rubric informed by APPRAISE-AI. Diagnostic-accuracy studies were assessed using an author-adapted QUADAS-2 framework incorporating QUADAS-AI-informed AI-specific considerations, the prediction-model study was assessed using PROBAST+AI, and the non-randomised treatment-effect study was assessed using ROBINS-I. The public dataset descriptor was evaluated separately using an author-developed dataset-quality, representativeness, and applicability framework. Because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesised thematically. Results: Twelve empirical studies and one public dataset descriptor were included, covering retinopathy of prematurity, retinoblastoma, amblyopia risk, myopia, congenital cataract, and visual-acuity assessment. AI systems frequently demonstrated promising diagnostic or screening performance, including sensitivity-first detection of treatment-requiring retinopathy of prematurity, high discrimination for retinoblastoma activity, and strong myopia prediction using fundus images. Several studies supported feasibility in neonatal, school, and community workflows using smartphone-based imaging, task-shifted operators, tele-referral, and human-in-the-loop review. However, external and temporal validation, calibration, patient-level reporting, subgroup and fairness assessment, and economic evaluation were limited. Conclusions: AI-enabled tools show promise for supporting selected paediatric ophthalmic screening, triage, and surveillance pathways, particularly when combined with image-quality control, explicit escalation, and human oversight. However, confidence in the reported performance is limited by single-centre studies and enriched samples, small numbers of clinically important cases, heterogeneous analytical units, potentially optimistic aggregation procedures, limited external or temporal validation, incomplete calibration, and absent fairness analyses. Routine autonomous implementation remains premature.