ArticleJAMA network open2022
Artificial Intelligence for Screening of Multiple Retinal and Optic Nerve Diseases.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
92 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitreoretinal disease detection using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial intelligence models for strabismus screening: methodological insights and future directions.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of AI Models in Detecting Different Inherited Retinal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Pooled it
- AI for glaucoma, Are we reporting well? a systematic literature review of DECIDE-AI checklist adherence.Eye (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Performances of artificial intelligence in detecting pathologic myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eye (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Performance of artificial intelligence in diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Clinical validation of artificial intelligence algorithms for the detection of different central-involved retinal pathologies and glaucoma from non-mydriatic images.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Trial
- Generative adversarial networks (GAN) for pre-dilation retinal photograph quality enhancement.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- The Underutilized Ocular Fundus in Emergency Departments: Current Progress and Future Prospect of Imaging and Artificial Intelligence for Patient Care.Ophthalmology science · 2026Review
- Evaluating an AI-assisted triage workflow for retinal diseases.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Review
- Deep Learning and Radiomics Assessment for Highly Myopic Glaucoma Detection Based on Fundus Photography.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Shared Genetic Architecture and Multidimensional Modifiable Correlates between Myopia and Retinal-Optic Nerve Diseases.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Detection of Papilledema: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Health care science · 2026Review
- AI-based fundus screening of teachers: fundus tessellated density as a myopia biomarker and occupational associations.BMC public health · 2026Observational
- Quantitative Flavoprotein Fluorescence Parameters in Retinal and Optic Nerve Diseases: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of artificial intelligence on the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of ophthalmic disease screening services: a scoping review.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Transforming Eye-Care Diagnostics Through Artificial Intelligence, Biometric Evaluation, and Tele-Optometry.Cureus · 2026Review
32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The lack of experienced ophthalmologists limits the early diagnosis of retinal diseases. Artificial intelligence can be an efficient real-time way for screening retinal diseases. Objective: To develop and prospectively validate a deep learning (DL) algorithm that, based on ocular fundus images, recognizes numerous retinal diseases simultaneously in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, diagnostic study at 65 public medical screening centers and hospitals in 19 Chinese provinces included individuals attending annual routine medical examinations and participants of population-based and community-based studies. Exposures: Based on 120 002 ocular fundus photographs, the Retinal Artificial Intelligence Diagnosis System (RAIDS) was developed to identify 10 retinal diseases. RAIDS was validated in a prospective collected data set, and the performance between RAIDS and ophthalmologists was compared in the data sets of the population-based Beijing Eye Study and the community-based Kailuan Eye Study. Main Outcomes and Measures: The performance of each classifier included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1 score, and Cohen κ score. Results: In the prospective validation data set of 208 758 images collected from 110 784 individuals (median [range] age, 42 [8-87] years; 115 443 [55.3%] female), RAIDS achieved a sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI, 89.5%-90.1%) to detect any of 10 retinal diseases. RAIDS differentiated 10 retinal diseases with accuracies ranging from 95.3% to 99.9%, without marked differences between medical screening centers and geographical regions in China. Compared with retinal specialists, RAIDS achieved a higher sensitivity for detection of any retinal abnormality (RAIDS, 91.7% [95% CI, 90.6%-92.8%]; certified ophthalmologists, 83.7% [95% CI, 82.1%-85.1%]; junior retinal specialists, 86.4% [95% CI, 84.9%-87.7%]; and senior retinal specialists, 88.5% [95% CI, 87.1%-89.8%]). RAIDS reached a superior or similar diagnostic sensitivity compared with senior retinal specialists in the detection of 7 of 10 retinal diseases (ie, referral diabetic retinopathy, referral possible glaucoma, macular hole, epiretinal macular membrane, hypertensive retinopathy, myelinated fibers, and retinitis pigmentosa). It achieved a performance comparable with the performance by certified ophthalmologists in 2 diseases (ie, age-related macular degeneration and retinal vein occlusion). Compared with ophthalmologists, RAIDS needed 96% to 97% less time for the image assessment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, the DL system was associated with accurately distinguishing 10 retinal diseases in real time. This technology may help overcome the lack of experienced ophthalmologists in underdeveloped areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.