ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Prospective pragmatic trial of automated retinal photography and AI glaucoma screening in Australian primary care.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging primary care with artificial intelligence: toward a global 1.5-Tier Healthcare System.npj health systems · 2026Review
- AI-driven multimodal retinal imaging for early detection and risk stratification of vascular and neurodegenerative diseases.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in glaucoma diagnosis and management: Has its time come?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of RETFound and a Supervised Convolutional Neural Network for Detection of Referable Glaucoma from Fundus Photographs.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Comparison of Foundation and Supervised Learning-Based Models for Detection of Referable Glaucoma from Fundus Photographs.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are no prospective clinical studies evaluating artificial intelligence implementation for glaucoma detection in real-world settings. We developed an automated retinal photography and AI-based screening system and prospectively assessed its accuracy, feasibility, and acceptability in Australian general practice (GP) clinics. Adults aged 50 years or older were recruited during routine GP visits, with retinal images captured using an automated fundus camera and analysed by the AI system for glaucoma risk classification. Of 414 participants, 277 (66.9%) had analysable images, with a total of 483 eyes included. The AI system achieved an AUROC of 0.80, sensitivity of 65.0%, and specificity of 94.6%. Among 161 previously undiagnosed patients, 18 (11.2%) were identified as referable glaucoma. Patient feedback was positive, and clinic staff supported AI-assisted screening to enhance glaucoma care. Despite challenges such as lower sensitivity and image acquisition limitations, the system shows promise for opportunistic screening in primary care settings.
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.