ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Predicting Vision-Threatening Retinopathy in Patients With Diabetes Using Patient-Reported Data: Impact on Reading Center Workflow Efficiency.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: First-come, first-served (FCFS) image review may delay identification of patients with vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR). We developed a machine learning triage model using patient-reported clinical data to predict VTDR and evaluated its potential effect on reading-center workflow. Methods: We developed an ensemble model using XGBoost, CatBoost, and LightGBM in 9403 patients with diabetes imaged at the Alexandria iCare Retina Reading Center. Analyses were performed at the patient level using a worse-eye definition, with VTDR defined as severe nonproliferative DR or worse or diabetic macular edema. Predictors included demographic variables, comorbidities, smoking status, diabetes therapy, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) when available. Model performance was evaluated with and without HbA1c. After model development, workflow simulations compared standard FCFS review with model-based prioritization and model plus prior-treatment prioritization. Results: The ensemble model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 with HbA1c and 0.87 without. With HbA1c, sensitivity was 74.8%, specificity was 88.6%, positive predictive value was 80.3%, and negative predictive value was 85.0%. In the 6-month workflow simulation, the mean time to evaluation for confirmed VTDR decreased from 57.08 ± 18.11 minutes with FCFS review to 48.86 ± 16.02 minutes with model-only prioritization and 43.01 ± 15.89 minutes with model plus prior-treatment prioritization. Conclusions: A patient-reported machine learning triage model identified patients at higher risk of VTDR and improved prioritization in simulated reading-center workflows. Translational Relevance: Patient-reported triage may help reading centers to prioritize high-risk patients while preserving human grading.
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.