ArticleResearch square2024
Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Increases Access and Health Equity in Underserved Populations with Diabetes.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetic eye disease (DED) is a leading cause of blindness in the world. Early detection and treatment of DED have been shown to be both sight-saving and cost-effective. As such, annual testing for DED is recommended for adults with diabetes and is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure. However, adherence to this guideline has historically been low, and access to this sight-saving intervention has particularly been limited for specific populations, such as Black or African American patients. In 2018, the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) De Novo cleared autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnosing DED in a primary care setting. In 2020, Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM), an integrated healthcare system with over 30 primary care sites, began deploying autonomous AI for DED testing in some of its primary care clinics. In this retrospective study, we aimed to determine whether autonomous AI implementation was associated with increased adherence to annual DED testing, and whether this was different for specific populations. JHM primary care sites were categorized as "non-AI" sites (sites with no autonomous AI deployment over the study period and where patients are referred to eyecare for DED testing) or "AI-switched" sites (sites that did not have autonomous AI testing in 2019 but did by 2021). We conducted a difference-in-difference analysis using a logistic regression model to compare change in adherence rates from 2019 to 2021 between non-AI and AI-switched sites. Our study included all adult patients with diabetes managed within our health system (17,674 patients for the 2019 cohort and 17,590 patients for the 2021 cohort) and has three major findings. First, after controlling for a wide range of potential confounders, our regression analysis demonstrated that the odds ratio of adherence at AI-switched sites was 36% higher than that of non-AI sites, suggesting that there was a higher increase in DED testing between 2019 and 2021 at AI-switched sites than at non-AI sites. Second, our data suggested autonomous AI improved access for historically disadvantaged populations. The adherence rate for Black/African Americans increased by 11.9% within AI-switched sites whereas it decreased by 1.2% within non-AI sites over the same time frame. Third, the data suggest that autonomous AI improved health equity by closing care gaps. For example, in 2019, a large adherence rate gap existed between Asian Americans and Black/African Americans (61.1% vs. 45.5%). This 15.6% gap shrank to 3.5% by 2021. In summary, our real-world deployment results in a large integrated healthcare system suggest that autonomous AI improves adherence to a HEDIS measure, patient access, and health equity for patients with diabetes - particularly in historically disadvantaged patient groups. While our findings are encouraging, they will need to be replicated and validated in a prospective manner across more diverse settings.
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.