ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Active Learning Under Expert-Budget Constraints: A Human-in-the-Loop Pipeline for Diabetic Retinopathy Lesion Detection.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
Early diagnosis of Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is critical for preventing irreversible vision loss, but precise lesion annotation by ophthalmologists is the dominant cost in building any clinical-grade DR detection model. The structural problem in real hospital settings is not labeling cost per se, but expert availability: ophthalmologists' time is bounded by clinical duties, so the active-learning (AL) cycle can iterate only a handful of times in practice. We frame this constraint explicitly and ask which AL designs work best under a tight expert budget. We propose Virtuous Cycle, a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) pipeline that integrates (i) a YOLOv8x-based object detector for microaneurysms, hemorrhages, and exudates, (ii) four AL sampling strategies (Average Confidence, Random, Hybrid-Diversity, Monte Carlo Dropout), and (iii) an in-hospital annotation platform (Diavision Studio) in which clinicians refine AI pre-labels rather than draw from scratch. We evaluate Virtuous Cycle on a real-world fundus dataset from the National Medical Center (NMC) across eight AL rounds, expanding the labeled pool from 81 images (R0) to 481 images (R8) within the actual expert-time budget of two ophthalmologists. Across three independent random seeds, random sampling dominates at cold start (mean mAP@50 0.14→0.25 over R0-R1), whereas Hybrid-Diversity converges to the highest mAP@50, Precision, and Recall by R7 (431 images; mAP@50 0.40, Precision 0.55, Recall 0.41), with MC Dropout close behind; by R8, the labeled pool is exhausted and all strategies converge to the same final model. A clinician crossover analysis of 36 paired clinical images, controlling for per-clinician speed bias and per-image difficulty bias, shows no statistically significant difference in overall per-image labeling time between AI-assisted and manual annotation (p=0.52), but a statistically significant increase in confirmed lesion detections under AI assistance (p=0.0058), driven predominantly (84-100% of the net increase) by microaneurysms, the lesion type most prone to being missed unaided. The results indicate that, under expert-budget constraints, AL strategy choice should be staged: random sampling for cold start, uncertainty-and-diversity sampling once the model has matured, and that AI assistance trades a modest, lesion-burden-dependent time cost for a measurable gain in the sensitivity of microaneurysm detection.
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.