ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Implementing and evaluating a fully functional AI-enabled model for chronic eye disease screening in a real clinical environment.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Integrated Implementation Strategies to Promote the Use of AI-Assisted Diagnostic Software for Lung Nodule Screening in China: Process Evaluation Based on the RE-AIM Framework.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Prospective real-world implementation of deep learning systems in healthcare: a systematic review guided by implementation science.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Augmented Fundus Disease Screening by Non-Ophthalmologist Physicians: A Paired Before-After Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Enhancing Ophthalmic Diagnosis and Treatment with Artificial Intelligence.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Patient acceptance of AI-assisted diabetic retinopathy screening in primary care: findings from a questionnaire-based feasibility study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Valuable insights into general practice staff's experiences and perspectives on AI-assisted diabetic retinopathy screening-An interview study.Frontiers in 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to increase the affordability and accessibility of eye disease screening, especially with the recent approval of AI-based diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening programs in several countries.
methodsThis study investigated the performance, feasibility, and user experience of a seamless hardware and software solution for screening chronic eye diseases in a real-world clinical environment in Germany. The solution integrated AI grading for DR, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and glaucoma, along with specialist auditing and patient referral decision. The study comprised several components: (1) evaluating the entire system solution from recruitment to eye image capture and AI grading for DR, AMD, and glaucoma; (2) comparing specialist's grading results with AI grading results; (3) gathering user feedback on the solution.
resultsA total of 231 patients were recruited, and their consent forms were obtained. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for DR grading were 100.00%, 80.10%, and 90.00%, respectively. For AMD grading, the values were 90.91%, 78.79%, and 85.00%, and for glaucoma grading, the values were 93.26%, 76.76%, and 85.00%. The analysis of all false positive cases across the three diseases and their comparison with the final referral decisions revealed that only 17 patients were falsely referred among the 231 patients. The efficacy analysis of the system demonstrated the effectiveness of the AI grading process in the study's testing environment. Clinical staff involved in using the system provided positive feedback on the disease screening process, particularly praising the seamless workflow from patient registration to image transmission and obtaining the final result. Results from a questionnaire completed by 12 participants indicated that most found the system easy, quick, and highly satisfactory. The study also revealed room for improvement in the AMD model, suggesting the need to enhance its training data. Furthermore, the performance of the glaucoma model grading could be improved by incorporating additional measures such as intraocular pressure.
conclusionsThe implementation of the AI-based approach for screening three chronic eye diseases proved effective in real-world settings, earning positive feedback on the usability of the integrated platform from both the screening staff and auditors. The auditing function has proven valuable for obtaining efficient second opinions from experts, pointing to its potential for enhancing remote screening capabilities.
trial registrationInstitutional Review Board of the Hamburg Medical Chamber (Ethik-Kommission der Ärztekammer Hamburg): 2021-10574-BO-ff.
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.