Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38514657›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Diagnostic decisions of specialist optometrists exposed to ambiguous deep-learning outputs.

Josie Carmichael, Enrico Costanza, Ann Blandford, Robbert Struyven, Pearse A Keane, Konstantinos Balaskas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  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

6 authors.

Josie CarmichaelUniversity College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK. josie.carmichael.20@ucl.ac.uk.
Enrico CostanzaUniversity College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK.
Ann BlandfordUniversity College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK.
Robbert StruyvenInstitute of Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL, London, UK.
Pearse A KeaneInstitute of Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL, London, UK.
Konstantinos BalaskasInstitute of Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL, London, UK.

Funding

Moorfields Eye Charity Career Development Award R190028ANational Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology IS-BRC-1215-20002UK Research & Innovation Future Leaders Fellowship MR/T019050/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential in ophthalmology. We investigated how ambiguous outputs from an AI diagnostic support system (AI-DSS) affected diagnostic responses from optometrists when assessing cases of suspected retinal disease. Thirty optometrists (15 more experienced, 15 less) assessed 30 clinical cases. For ten, participants saw an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan, basic clinical information and retinal photography ('no AI'). For another ten, they were also given AI-generated OCT-based probabilistic diagnoses ('AI diagnosis'); and for ten, both AI-diagnosis and AI-generated OCT segmentations ('AI diagnosis + segmentation') were provided. Cases were matched across the three types of presentation and were selected to include 40% ambiguous and 20% incorrect AI outputs. Optometrist diagnostic agreement with the predefined reference standard was lowest for 'AI diagnosis + segmentation' (204/300, 68%) compared to 'AI diagnosis' (224/300, 75% p = 0.010), and 'no Al' (242/300, 81%, p =  < 0.001). Agreement with AI diagnosis consistent with the reference standard decreased (174/210 vs 199/210, p = 0.003), but participants trusted the AI more (p = 0.029) with segmentations. Practitioner experience did not affect diagnostic responses (p = 0.24). More experienced participants were more confident (p = 0.012) and trusted the AI less (p = 0.038). Our findings also highlight issues around reference standard definition.

Indexed as

Deep LearningOphthalmologyOptometristsRetinal DiseasesArtificial IntelligenceHumansTomography, Optical CoherenceArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionOCTOphthalmologyRetinal disease

Identifiers

PMID38514657
PMCPMC10958016

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.