Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38587776›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024

Rate and Predictors of Misclassification of Active Diabetic Macular Edema as Detected by an Automated Retinal Image Analysis System.

Lamberto La Franca, Carola Rutigliani, Lisa Checchin, Rosangela Lattanzio, Francesco Bandello, Maria Vittoria Cicinelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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.

Lamberto La FrancaDepartment of Ophthalmology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Carola RutiglianiSchool of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Lisa ChecchinDepartment of Ophthalmology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Rosangela LattanzioDepartment of Ophthalmology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Francesco BandelloDepartment of Ophthalmology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Maria Vittoria CicinelliDepartment of Ophthalmology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. cicinelli.mariavittoria@hsr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2938-0409

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of this work is to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and misclassification rate of an automated retinal image analysis system (ARIAS) in diagnosing active diabetic macular edema (DME) and to identify factors associated with true and false positives.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of prospectively enrolled patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) referred to a tertiary medical retina center for screening or management of DME. All patients underwent two-field fundus photography (macula- and disc-centered) with a true-color confocal camera; images were processed by EyeArt V.2.1.0 (Woodland Hills, CA, USA). Active DME was defined as the presence of intraretinal or subretinal fluid on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Sensitivity and specificity and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Variables associated with true (i.e., DME labeled as present by ARIAS + fluid on SD-OCT) and false positives (i.e., DME labeled as present by ARIAS + no fluid on SD-OCT) of active DME were explored.

resultsA total of 298 eyes were included; 92 eyes (31%) had active DME. ARIAS sensitivity and specificity were 82.61% (95% CI 72.37-89.60) and 84.47% (95% CI 78.34-89.10). The misclassification rate was 16%. Factors associated with true positives included younger age (p = 0.01), shorter DM duration (p = 0.006), presence of hard exudates (p = 0.005), and microaneurysms (p = 0.002). Factors associated with false positives included longer DM duration (p = 0.01), worse diabetic retinopathy severity (p = 0.008), history of inactivated DME (p < 0.001), and presence of hard exudates (p < 0.001), microaneurysms (p < 0.001), or epiretinal membrane (p = 0.06).

conclusionsThe sensitivity of ARIAS was diminished in older patients and those without DME-related fundus lesions, while the specificity was reduced in cases with a history of inactivated DME. ARIAS performed well in screening for naïve DME but is not effective in surveillance inactivated DME.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDiabetic macular edemaDiabetic retinopathySurveillance

Identifiers

PMID38587776
PMCPMC11109071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.