ArticleMedicine2026
Development and validation of a blinding eye disease screening system based on lightweight convolutional neural networks: A diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To develop a cost-effective screening model for blinding eye diseases, assist primary medical institutions in improving screening efficiency, and reduce the risk of irreversible visual impairment in patients caused by delayed diagnosis. In this study, a lightweight ophthalmic disease screening model was constructed based on deep learning and 89,158 fundus photographs. Model performance evaluation was divided into 2 stages: first, testing was performed on 2 independent external validation datasets to assess the generalizability and stability of the model. Second, the classification performance of the artificial intelligence model was compared with that of ophthalmologists with different years of clinical experience to determine the clinical experience level corresponding to the model's diagnostic capability. The model achieved an average accuracy of 96.11%, F1-score of 82.39%, recall of 81.61%, receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve of 99.77%, precision of 96.44%, and specificity of 98.66% on the internal validation set; on external validation datasets, the average accuracy was 90.92%, average specificity 97.03%, and average precision 89.98%. In the comparative evaluation with clinicians, junior ophthalmologists achieved an accuracy of 74% (95% CI: 61.84-86.16%, α = 0.05) in identifying lesion-containing false-positive images, while mid-level ophthalmologists reached 88% (95% CI: 78.99-97.01%, α = 0.05). This study developed an artificial intelligence-based screening system for blinding eye diseases with performance comparable to that of mid-level ophthalmologists, providing an effective solution for promoting population-based screening of blinding eye diseases in primary care settings.
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.