ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Grading of diabetic retinopathy using a pre-segmenting deep learning classification model: Validation of an automated algorithm.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Customizing AI-based screening with real-world data: Practical insights from diabetic retinopathy.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Observational
- Grading of diabetic retinopathy using a pre-segmenting deep learning classification model: Validation of an automated algorithm.Acta ophthalmologica · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate the performance of autonomous diabetic retinopathy (DR) grading by comparing a human grader and a self-developed deep-learning (DL) algorithm with gold-standard evaluation.
methodsWe included 500, 6-field retinal images graded by an expert ophthalmologist (gold standard) according to the International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Disease Severity Scale as represented with DR levels 0-4 (97, 100, 100, 103, 100, respectively). Weighted kappa was calculated to measure the DR classification agreement for (1) a certified human grader without, and (2) with assistance from a DL algorithm and (3) the DL operating autonomously. Using any DR (level 0 vs. 1-4) as a cutoff, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV). Finally, we assessed lesion discrepancies between Model 3 and the gold standard.
resultsAs compared to the gold standard, weighted kappa for Models 1-3 was 0.88, 0.89 and 0.72, sensitivities were 95%, 94% and 78% and specificities were 82%, 84% and 81%. Extrapolating to a real-world DR prevalence of 23.8%, the PPV were 63%, 64% and 57% and the NPV were 98%, 98% and 92%. Discrepancies between the gold standard and Model 3 were mainly incorrect detection of artefacts (n = 49), missed microaneurysms (n = 26) and inconsistencies between the segmentation and classification (n = 51).
conclusionWhile the autonomous DL algorithm for DR classification only performed on par with a human grader for some measures in a high-risk population, extrapolations to a real-world population demonstrated an excellent 92% NPV, which could make it clinically feasible to use autonomously to identify non-DR patients.
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.