Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37847478›Full record

ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023

EyeArt artificial intelligence analysis of diabetic retinopathy in retinal screening events.

Rita Vought, Victoria Vought, Megh Shah, Bernard Szirth, Neelakshi Bhagat

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Artificial intelligence in diabetic retinopathy: from automated screening to risk-stratified care.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rita VoughtThe Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers NJMS), 90 Bergen St., Suite 6100, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Victoria VoughtThe Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers NJMS), 90 Bergen St., Suite 6100, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Megh ShahThe Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers NJMS), 90 Bergen St., Suite 6100, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Bernard SzirthThe Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers NJMS), 90 Bergen St., Suite 6100, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Neelakshi BhagatThe Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers NJMS), 90 Bergen St., Suite 6100, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA. bhagatne@njms.rutgers.edu.
Rutgers New Jersey Medical SchoolRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEarly detection and treatment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) are critical for decreasing the risk of vision loss and preventing blindness. Community vision screenings may play an important role, especially in communities at higher risk for diabetes. To address the need for increased DR detection and referrals, we evaluated the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for screening DR.

methodsPatient images of 124 eyes were obtained using a 45° Canon Non-Mydriatic CR-2 Plus AF retinal camera in the Department of Endocrinology Clinic (Newark, NJ) and in a community screening event (Newark, NJ). Images were initially classified by an onsite grader and uploaded for analysis by EyeArt, a cloud-based AI software developed by Eyenuk (California, USA). The images were also graded by an off-site retina specialist. Using Fleiss kappa analysis, a correlation was investigated between the three grading systems, the AI, onsite grader, and a US board-certified retina specialist, for a diagnosis of DR and referral pattern.

resultsThe EyeArt results, onsite grader, and the retina specialist had a 79% overall agreement on the diagnosis of DR: 86 eyes with full agreement, 37 eyes with agreement between two graders, 1 eye with full disagreement. The kappa value for concordance on a diagnosis was 0.69 (95% CI 0.61-0.77), indicating substantial agreement. Referral patterns by EyeArt, the onsite grader, and the ophthalmologist had an 85% overall agreement: 96 eyes with full agreement, 28 eyes with disagreement. The kappa value for concordance on "whether to refer" was 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.80), indicating substantial agreement. Using the board-certified retina specialist as the gold standard, EyeArt had an 81% accuracy (101/124 eyes) for diagnosis and 83% accuracy (103/124 eyes) in referrals. For referrals, the sensitivity of EyeArt was 74%, specificity was 87%, positive predictive value was 72%, and negative predictive value was 88%.

conclusionsThis retrospective cross-sectional analysis offers insights into use of AI in diabetic screenings and the significant role it will play in automated detection of DR. The EyeArt readings were beneficial with some limitations in a community screening environment. These limitations included a decreased accuracy in the presence of cataracts and the functional cost of EyeArt uploads in a community setting.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMass ScreeningPhotographyRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceCommunity vision outreachDiabetic retinopathy

Identifiers

PMID37847478
OpenAlexW4387692893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.