ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Towards a Device Agnostic AI for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: An External Validation Study.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of regulator-approved deep learning systems for fundus diabetic retinopathy detections.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a validated Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm developed for a smartphone-based camera on images captured using a standard desktop fundus camera to screen for diabetic retinopathy (DR). Participants: Subjects with established diabetes mellitus. Methods: Images captured on a desktop fundus camera (Topcon TRC-50DX, Japan) for a previous study with 135 consecutive patients (233 eyes) with established diabetes mellitus, with or without DR were analysed by the AI algorithm. The performance of the AI algorithm to detect any DR, referable DR (RDR Ie, worse than mild non proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and/or diabetic macular edema (DME)) and sight-threatening DR (STDR Ie, severe NPDR or worse and/or DME) were assessed based on comparisons against both image-based consensus grades by two fellowship trained vitreo-retina specialists and clinical examination. Results: The sensitivity was 98.3% (95% CI 96%, 100%) and the specificity 83.7% (95% CI 73%, 94%) for RDR against image grading. The specificity for RDR decreased to 65.2% (95% CI 53.7%, 76.6%) and the sensitivity marginally increased to 100% (95% CI 100%, 100%) when compared against clinical examination. The sensitivity for detection of any DR when compared against image-based consensus grading and clinical exam were both 97.6% (95% CI 95%, 100%). The specificity for any DR detection was 90.9% (95% CI 82.3%, 99.4%) as compared against image grading and 88.9% (95% CI 79.7%, 98.1%) on clinical exam. The sensitivity for STDR was 99.0% (95% CI 96%, 100%) against image grading and 100% (95% CI 100%, 100%) as compared against clinical exam. Conclusion: The AI algorithm could screen for RDR and any DR with robust performance on images captured on a desktop fundus camera when compared to image grading, despite being previously optimized for a smartphone-based camera.
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.