ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Improving diabetic retinopathy screening using artificial intelligence: design, evaluation and before-and-after study of a custom development.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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.
- A multimodal retinal image dataset for diabetic retinopathy detection using foundation models.Scientific data · 2026Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetic Retinopathy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The worst outcomes of diabetic retinopathy (DR) can be prevented by implementing DR screening programs assisted by AI. At the University Hospital of Navarre (HUN), Spain, general practitioners (GPs) grade fundus images in an ongoing DR screening program, referring to a second screening level (ophthalmologist) target patients. Methods: After collecting their requirements, HUN decided to develop a custom AI tool, called NaIA-RD, to assist their GPs in DR screening. This paper introduces NaIA-RD, details its implementation, and highlights its unique combination of DR and retinal image quality grading in a single system. Its impact is measured in an unprecedented before-and-after study that compares 19,828 patients screened before NaIA-RD's implementation and 22,962 patients screened after. Results: NaIA-RD influenced the screening criteria of 3/4 GPs, increasing their sensitivity. Agreement between NaIA-RD and the GPs was high for non-referral proposals (94.6% or more), but lower and variable (from 23.4% to 86.6%) for referral proposals. An ophthalmologist discarded a NaIA-RD error in most of contradicted referral proposals by labeling the 93% of a sample of them as referable. In an autonomous setup, NaIA-RD would have reduced the study visualization workload by 4.27 times without missing a single case of sight-threatening DR referred by a GP. Conclusion: DR screening was more effective when supported by NaIA-RD, which could be safely used to autonomously perform the first level of screening. This shows how AI devices, when seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows, can help improve clinical pathways in the long term.
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.