ArticleArXiv2025
Towards Accountable AI in Eye Disease Diagnosis: Workflow, External Validation, and Development.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI hallucinations in academic writing: implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
39 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Timely disease diagnosis is challenging due to limited clinical availability and growing burdens. Although artificial intelligence (AI) shows expert-level diagnostic accuracy, a lack of downstream accountability-including workflow integration, external validation, and further development- continues to hinder its real-world adoption. Objective: To address gaps in the downstream accountability of medical AI through a case study on age-related macular degeneration (AMD) diagnosis and severity classification. Design Setting and Participants: We developed and evaluated an AI-assisted diagnostic and classification workflow for AMD. Four rounds of diagnostic assessments (accuracy and time) were conducted with 24 clinicians from 12 institutions. Each round was randomized and alternated between Manual and Manual + AI, with a washout period. In total, 2,880 AMD risk features were evaluated across 960 images from 240 Age-Related Eye Disease Study patient samples, both with and without AI assistance. For further development, we enhanced the original DeepSeeNet model into DeepSeeNet+ using ~40,000 additional images from the US population and tested it on three datasets, including an external set from Singapore. Main Outcomes and Measures: We measured the F1-score for accuracy (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) and diagnostic time (linear mixed-effects model), comparing Manual vs. Manual + AI. For further development, the F1-score (Wilcoxon rank-sum) was again used. Results: Among the 240 patients (mean age, 68.5 years; 53% female), AI assistance improved accuracy for 23 of 24 clinicians, increasing the average F1-score by 20% (37.71 to 45.52), with some improvements exceeding 50%. Manual diagnosis initially took an estimated 39.8 seconds per patient, whereas Manual + AI saved 10.3 seconds and remained 1.7-3.3 seconds faster in later rounds. However, combining manual and AI may not always yield the highest accuracy or efficiency, underscoring challenges in explainability and trust. DeepSeeNet+ performed better in three test sets, achieving 13% higher F1-score in the Singapore cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, AI assistance improved both accuracy and time efficiency for AMD diagnosis. Further development was essential for enhancing AI generalizability across diverse populations. These findings highlight the need for downstream accountability during early-stage clinical evaluations of medical AI. All code and models are publicly available.
Identifiers
40969489PMC12443229What 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.