Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37734417›Full record

ReviewAnnals of medicine2023

Artificial intelligence for telemedicine diabetic retinopathy screening: a review.

Luis Filipe Nakayama, Lucas Zago Ribeiro, Frederico Novaes, Isabele Ayumi Miyawaki, Andresa Emy Miyawaki, Juliana Angélica Estevão de Oliveira, Talita Oliveira, Fernando Korn Malerbi, Caio Vinicius Saito Regatieri, Leo Anthony Celi and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

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

11 authors.

Luis Filipe NakayamaInstitute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6847-6748
Lucas Zago RibeiroDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9130-1500
Frederico NovaesDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0002-7794-3843
Isabele Ayumi MiyawakiFederal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1504-3076
Andresa Emy MiyawakiPontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1529-5150
Juliana Angélica Estevão de OliveiraDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1485-2012
Talita OliveiraDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3930-4776
Fernando Korn MalerbiDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6523-5172
Caio Vinicius Saito RegatieriDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1511-8696
Leo Anthony CeliInstitute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6712-6626
Paolo S SilvaBeetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Centre, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8024-9348

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to compare artificial intelligence (AI) systems applied in diabetic retinopathy (DR) teleophthalmology screening, currently deployed systems, fairness initiatives and the challenges for implementation.

methodsThe review included articles retrieved from PubMed/Medline/EMBASE literature search strategy regarding telemedicine, DR and AI. The screening criteria included human articles in English, Portuguese or Spanish and related to telemedicine and AI for DR screening. The author's affiliations and the study's population income group were classified according to the World Bank Country and Lending Groups.

resultsThe literature search yielded a total of 132 articles, and nine were included after full-text assessment. The selected articles were published between 2004 and 2020 and were grouped as telemedicine systems, algorithms, economic analysis and image quality assessment. Four telemedicine systems that perform a quality assessment, image preprocessing and pathological screening were reviewed. A data and post-deployment bias assessment are not performed in any of the algorithms, and none of the studies evaluate the social impact implementations. There is a lack of representativeness in the reviewed articles, with most authors and target populations from high-income countries and no low-income country representation.

conclusionsTelemedicine and AI hold great promise for augmenting decision-making in medical care, expanding patient access and enhancing cost-effectiveness. Economic studies and social science analysis are crucial to support the implementation of AI in teleophthalmology screening programs. Promoting fairness and generalizability in automated systems combined with telemedicine screening programs is not straightforward. Improving data representativeness, reducing biases and promoting equity in deployment and post-deployment studies are all critical steps in model development.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyOphthalmologyTelemedicineAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansartificial intelligencediabetic retinopathyfairnessTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID37734417
PMCPMC10515659

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.