Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37530278›Full record

Observational studyIndian journal of ophthalmology2023

Efficacy of deep learning-based artificial intelligence models in screening and referring patients with diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma.

Janani Surya, Garima, Neha Pandy, Tyler Hyungtaek Rim, Geunyoung Lee, M N Swathi Priya, Brughanya Subramanian, Rajiv Raman

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Research Progress of Diabetes-related Glaucoma: Mechanisms, Impacts and Management Strategies.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
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.

Janani SuryaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
GarimaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Neha PandyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Tyler Hyungtaek RimDepartment of Ophthalmology, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore; Department of Science and Technology, Medi Whale, Seoul, South Korea.
Geunyoung LeeDepartment of Science and Technology, Medi Whale, Seoul, South Korea.
M N Swathi PriyaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Brughanya SubramanianDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Rajiv RamanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze the efficacy of a deep learning (DL)-based artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithm in detecting the presence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and glaucoma suspect as compared to the diagnosis by specialists secondarily to explore whether the use of this algorithm can reduce the cross-referral in three clinical settings: a diabetologist clinic, retina clinic, and glaucoma clinic. Methods: This is a prospective observational study. Patients between 35 and 65 years of age were recruited from glaucoma and retina clinics at a tertiary eye care hospital and a physician's clinic. Non-mydriatic fundus photography was performed according to the disease-specific protocols. These images were graded by the AI system and specialist graders and comparatively analyzed. Results: Out of 1085 patients, 362 were seen at glaucoma clinics, 341 were seen at retina clinics, and 382 were seen at physician clinics. The kappa agreement between AI and the glaucoma grader was 85% [95% confidence interval (CI): 77.55-92.45%], and retina grading had 91.90% (95% CI: 87.78-96.02%). The retina grader from the glaucoma clinic had 85% agreement, and the glaucoma grader from the retina clinic had 73% agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of AI glaucoma grading were 79.37% (95% CI: 67.30-88.53%) and 99.45 (95% CI: 98.03-99.93), respectively; DR grading had 83.33% (95 CI: 51.59-97.91) and 98.86 (95% CI: 97.35-99.63). The cross-referral accuracy of DR and glaucoma was 89.57% and 95.43%, respectively. Conclusion: DL-based AI systems showed high sensitivity and specificity in both patients with DR and glaucoma; also, there was a good agreement between the specialist graders and the AI system.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDiabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyGlaucomaArtificial IntelligenceHumansMass ScreeningPhotographyRetinaand glaucomaArtificial intelligencedeep learningdiabetic retinopathy

Identifiers

PMID37530278
PMCPMC10538813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.