ArticlePLOS digital health2025
An inherently interpretable AI model improves screening speed and accuracy for early diabetic retinopathy.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultra-widefield color fundus photography in diabetic retinopathy: from panretinal assessment to multimodal integration.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Integration of ultra-widefield optical coherence tomography angiography images and clinical indicators for identifying early-stage diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- The AI-Augmented Ophthalmologist for chronic ocular diseases: a patient-centered framework for human-AI collaboration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a frequent complication of diabetes, affecting millions worldwide. Screening for this disease based on fundus images has been one of the first successful use cases for modern artificial intelligence in medicine. However, current state-of-the-art systems typically use black-box models to make referral decisions, requiring post-hoc methods for AI-human interaction and clinical decision support. We developed and evaluated an inherently interpretable deep learning model, which explicitly models the local evidence of DR as part of its network architecture, for clinical decision support in early DR screening. We trained the network on 34,350 high-quality fundus images from a publicly available dataset and validated its performance on a large range of ten external datasets. The inherently interpretable model was compared to post-hoc explainability techniques applied to a standard DNN architecture. For comparison, we obtained detailed lesion annotations from ophthalmologists on 65 images to study if the class evidence maps highlight clinically relevant information. We tested the clinical usefulness of our model in a retrospective reader study, where we compared screening for DR without AI support to screening with AI support with and without AI explanations. The inherently interpretable deep learning model obtained an accuracy of .906 [.900-.913] (95%-confidence interval) and an AUC of .904 [.894-.913] on the internal test set and similar performance on external datasets, comparable to the standard DNN. High evidence regions directly extracted from the model contained clinically relevant lesions such as microaneurysms or hemorrhages with a high precision of .960 [.941-.976], surpassing post-hoc techniques applied to a standard DNN. Decision support by the model highlighting high-evidence regions in the image improved screening accuracy for difficult decisions and improved screening speed. This shows that inherently interpretable deep learning models can provide clinical decision support while obtaining state-of-the-art performance improving human-AI collaboration.
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.