Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34779843›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2021

Pivotal Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence System for Autonomous Detection of Referrable and Vision-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy.

Eli Ipp, David Liljenquist, Bruce Bode, Viral N Shah, Steven Silverstein, Carl D Regillo, Jennifer I Lim, SriniVas Sadda, Amitha Domalpally, Gerry Gray and 4 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT03112005 (Assessment of EyeArt as an Automated Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Tool), which is not on this map. Cited by 140 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
18.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT03112005 completednot on this map

Assessment of EyeArt as an Automated Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Tool

TypeobservationalSponsorEyenuk, Inc.Ran2017 to 2018Enrolled942ConditionsDiabetic Retinopathy, Diabetic Eye Problems, Diabetic Macular EdemaArmsColor fundus photography, Mydriatic Agent
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

140 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 211 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Current Trends in AI and Eye Disease Diagnostics.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Eli IppThe Lundquist Institute, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California.
David LiljenquistRocky Mountain Diabetes Center, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Bruce BodeAtlanta Diabetes Associates, Atlanta, Georgia.
Viral N ShahBarbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Steven SilversteinSilverstein Eye Centers, Kansas City, Missouri.
Carl D RegilloWills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jennifer I LimDepartment of Ophthalmology, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
SriniVas SaddaDoheny Eye Center, Arcadia, California.
Amitha DomalpallyFundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Gerry GrayData-Fi, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Malavika BhaskaranandEyenuk Inc, Los Angeles, California.
Chaithanya RamachandraEyenuk Inc, Los Angeles, California.
Kaushal SolankiEyenuk Inc, Los Angeles, California.
EyeArt Study Group
Eye Center · SAEyenuk (United States) · USAtlanta Diabetes Associates · USDoheny Eye Institute · USRocky Mountain Diabetes and Osteoporosis Center · USStar Center · USThomas Jefferson University · USUCLA Medical Center · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness in adults worldwide. Early detection and intervention can prevent blindness; however, many patients do not receive their recommended annual diabetic eye examinations, primarily owing to limited access. Objective: To evaluate the safety and accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) system (the EyeArt Automated DR Detection System, version 2.1.0) in detecting both more-than-mild diabetic retinopathy (mtmDR) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (vtDR). Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic study was preregistered (NCT03112005) and conducted from April 17, 2017, to May 30, 2018. A total of 942 individuals aged 18 years or older who had diabetes gave consent to participate at 15 primary care and eye care facilities. Data analysis was performed from February 14 to July 10, 2019. Interventions: Retinal imaging for the autonomous AI system and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) reference standard determination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measures included the sensitivity and specificity of the AI system in identifying participants' eyes with mtmDR and/or vtDR by 2-field undilated fundus photography vs a rigorous clinical reference standard comprising reading center grading of 4 wide-field dilated images using the ETDRS severity scale. Secondary outcome measures included the evaluation of imageability, dilated-if-needed analysis, enrichment correction analysis, worst-case imputation, and safety outcomes. Results: Of 942 consenting individuals, 893 patients (1786 eyes) met the inclusion criteria and completed the study protocol. The population included 449 men (50.3%). Mean (SD) participant age was 53.9 (15.2) years (median, 56; range, 18-88 years), 655 were White (73.3%), and 206 had type 1 diabetes (23.1%). Sensitivity and specificity of the AI system were high in detecting mtmDR (sensitivity: 95.5%; 95% CI, 92.4%-98.5% and specificity: 85.0%; 95% CI, 82.6%-87.4%) and vtDR (sensitivity: 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.1%-100% and specificity: 89.0%; 95% CI, 87.0%-91.1%) without dilation. Imageability was high without dilation, with the AI system able to grade 87.4% (95% CI, 85.2%-89.6%) of the eyes with reading center grades. When eyes with ungradable results were dilated per the protocol, the imageability improved to 97.4% (95% CI, 96.4%-98.5%), with the sensitivity and specificity being similar. After correcting for enrichment, the mtmDR specificity increased to 87.8% (95% CI, 86.3%-89.5%) and the sensitivity remained similar; for vtDR, both sensitivity (97.0%; 95% CI, 91.2%-100%) and specificity (90.1%; 95% CI, 89.4%-91.5%) improved. Conclusions and Relevance: This prospective multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic study noted safety and accuracy with use of the EyeArt Automated DR Detection System in detecting both mtmDR and, for the first time, vtDR, without physician assistance. These findings suggest that improved access to accurate, reliable diabetic eye examinations may increase adherence to recommended annual screenings and allow for accelerated referral of patients identified as having vtDR.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesDiabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReference StandardsReferral and ConsultationSensitivity and SpecificityVision Disorders

Identifiers

PMID34779843
PMCPMC8593763
OpenAlexW3213686666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.