Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34435963›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Screening Diabetic Retinopathy Using an Automated Retinal Image Analysis System in Independent and Assistive Use Cases in Mexico: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Alejandro Noriega, Daniela Meizner, Dalia Camacho, Jennifer Enciso, Hugo Quiroz-Mercado, Virgilio Morales-Canton, Abdullah Almaatouq, Alex Pentland

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Artificial intelligence in corneal diseases: A narrative review.Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Alejandro NoriegaMIT Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0106-392X
Daniela MeiznerRetina Department, Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1500-8887
Dalia CamachoProsperia Salud, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7493-7507
Jennifer EncisoProsperia Salud, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1289-9730
Hugo Quiroz-MercadoRetina Department, Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-9552
Virgilio Morales-CantonRetina Department, Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0454-3841
Abdullah AlmaatouqSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-9123
Alex PentlandMIT Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8053-9983
Asociacion Para Evitar la Ceguera en México Hospital Dr. Luis Sánchez Bulnes · MXMassachusetts Institute of Technology · USInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México · MXSecretaria de Salud · MXUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe automated screening of patients at risk of developing diabetic retinopathy represents an opportunity to improve their midterm outcome and lower the public expenditure associated with direct and indirect costs of common sight-threatening complications of diabetes.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop and evaluate the performance of an automated deep learning-based system to classify retinal fundus images as referable and nonreferable diabetic retinopathy cases, from international and Mexican patients. In particular, we aimed to evaluate the performance of the automated retina image analysis (ARIA) system under an independent scheme (ie, only ARIA screening) and 2 assistive schemes (ie, hybrid ARIA plus ophthalmologist screening), using a web-based platform for remote image analysis to determine and compare the sensibility and specificity of the 3 schemes.

methodsA randomized controlled experiment was performed where 17 ophthalmologists were asked to classify a series of retinal fundus images under 3 different conditions. The conditions were to (1) screen the fundus image by themselves (solo); (2) screen the fundus image after exposure to the retina image classification of the ARIA system (ARIA answer); and (3) screen the fundus image after exposure to the classification of the ARIA system, as well as its level of confidence and an attention map highlighting the most important areas of interest in the image according to the ARIA system (ARIA explanation). The ophthalmologists' classification in each condition and the result from the ARIA system were compared against a gold standard generated by consulting and aggregating the opinion of 3 retina specialists for each fundus image.

resultsThe ARIA system was able to classify referable vs nonreferable cases with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 98%, a sensitivity of 95.1%, and a specificity of 91.5% for international patient cases. There was an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 98.3%, a sensitivity of 95.2%, and a specificity of 90% for Mexican patient cases. The ARIA system performance was more successful than the average performance of the 17 ophthalmologists enrolled in the study. Additionally, the results suggest that the ARIA system can be useful as an assistive tool, as sensitivity was significantly higher in the experimental condition where ophthalmologists were exposed to the ARIA system's answer prior to their own classification (93.3%), compared with the sensitivity of the condition where participants assessed the images independently (87.3%; P=.05).

conclusionsThese results demonstrate that both independent and assistive use cases of the ARIA system present, for Latin American countries such as Mexico, a substantial opportunity toward expanding the monitoring capacity for the early detection of diabetes-related blindness.

Indexed as

automated diagnosisdiabetic retinopathyfundus image analysisretina

Identifiers

PMID34435963
PMCPMC8430849
OpenAlexW3163079112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.