ArticleEye open2026
The acceptability to patients with macular disease to have retreatment decisions being made by artificial intelligence.
Article in Eye open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a system that can take input data and subsequently provide a prediction-based output. In some instances, these systems can provide a recommendation for a clinical decision. Such systems are being developed to analyse retinal images and to determine if there is active retinal disease with a view to directly influencing treatment decisions. This study looks at whether AI-based decision making is acceptable to patients with macular disease. Methods: The Macular Society has a monthly newsletter which it sends out to its members and subscribers in which views were canvassed. They were offered participation in a conjoint analysis exploring human or AI decision making, the error rate, the time to follow up and whether the scans were double read by a human or AI tool. Options were presented in a random order and participants were asked to rank the suitability of different scenarios in order of preference. Results: The task was completed by 181 participants. The two most important factors were the error rate ( Conclusions: Patients with macular disease find AI to be acceptable in the assessment of retinal images. The most important factors to patients relate to the accuracy of the decision making.
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.