ArticleSouthern medical journal2026
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy in a Predominantly Non-White Population.
Article in Southern medical journal, 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
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Luminetics Core, a Food and Drug Administration-cleared artificial intelligence-based screening system, in the detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in a predominately non-White population and identify potential shortcomings in clinical implementation that should be addressed to mitigate disparities in health care.
methodsData were acquired via retrospective chart review and included 225 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus who were screened for DR using the LumineticsCore system (formerly IDx-DR) at the University Medical Center New Orleans (Louisiana). Metrics to assess DR detection efficacy included sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, and indeterminate screening result rates. Stratified analyses regarding associated medical comorbidities also were performed. Clinic follow-up rates and time frames also were noted per screen result group.
resultsThe study population had a diverse demographic profile, with 69.0% of subjects identifying as African American, 13.1% Hispanic, 10.7% White, 3.6% Asian, and 3.6% of subjects who either did not identify with the above racial/ethnic groups or declined to self-identify. The system yielded favorable performance measures in the study population regarding detection accuracy. It was found, however, that although most patients with a positive screen had ophthalmology referrals placed, 29.8% of patients with positive screen results did not attend their scheduled ophthalmology visit.
conclusionsThe LumineticsCore system was found to be a reliable screening test for the detection of DR in the study population. The relatively high no-show rate for scheduled ophthalmology referrals in patients with positive screen results, however, sheds light on an implementation system issue in need of further evaluation.
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.