ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2026
Screening for diabetic retinopathy with artificial intelligence in a primary care setting: a comparative cost analysis.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 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
objectiveCost analysis of autonomous artificial intelligence (AI)-based screening of diabetic retinopathy (DR) for adults with diabetes at a primary care clinic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study provides a comparative cost analysis of actual results using AI-based DR screening with counterfactual results based on all patients going through the physician-based referral system. A cost analysis is conducted using cost data from published sources, provincial billing codes, statistical sources, and patient characteristics from a clinical study to compare autonomous AI-based screening for DR versus physician-based screening. Costs considered include direct costs of operating the AI system, physician fees, and indirect costs to patient time. Along with total cost comparisons, a cost per DR case detected is estimated and a sensitivity analysis based on variations in AI costs is provided.
resultsOver the study period, 202 participants were screened for DR using autonomous AI. The majority (93.6%, n=189) of AI-based DR screening exams were completed successfully. The AI-based scenario results in total direct costs of $C7919.04 and indirect costs of $C5728.80, resulting in total costs of $C13 647.84 per 100 patients. The traditional physician-based approach results in total direct costs of $C8240 and indirect costs of $C19 998.09, resulting in total costs of $C28 238.09 for 100 patients. When costs are converted to costs per unit outcome, the total cost per diagnosed DR case is $C620.36 for the AI-based approach and $C1283.55 for the physician-based approach; the AI-based cost per diagnosed case was 52% lower.
conclusionGiven the lower cost per diagnosed case of the AI-based approach, there are advantages to the implementation of AI-based screening for DR.
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.