ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Evaluating an AI-assisted triage workflow for retinal diseases.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical value of artificial intelligence (AI) in fundus photography depends on workflow efficiency as well as diagnostic performance. We evaluated an AI-assisted negative-screening workflow for diabetic retinopathy (DR), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using 6,904 color fundus photographs independently graded by three retina specialists. In this workflow, AI-negative images were classified as negative without ophthalmologist review, whereas AI-positive images were referred for human interpretation. For each reader-disease pair, the reference standard was agreement between the other two readers; discordant cases were excluded (DR, 1.2%-2.3%; RVO, 0.3%-0.6%; AMD, 6.1%-11.6%). The workflow reduced direct ophthalmologist review to 7.3%-8.0% of images for DR, 11.7%-11.9% for RVO, and 13.5%-16.8% for AMD. For DR, sensitivity decreased significantly (0.9168 to 0.8838; difference, -0.0330; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0495 to -0.0165; p < 0.001), whereas specificity did not change significantly (0.9961 to 0.9983; p = 0.183). For RVO, sensitivity was unchanged (0.9807) and specificity did not change significantly (0.9985 to 0.9988; p = 0.320). For AMD, sensitivity decreased significantly (0.8570 to 0.8445; difference, -0.0124; 95% CI, -0.0215 to -0.0033; p = 0.008), whereas specificity did not change significantly (0.9685 to 0.9843; p = 0.324). In an exploratory image-level analysis for at least one target disease, review decreased to 27.7%-30.1%; sensitivity changed from 0.9122 to 0.9039 (difference, -0.0083; 95% CI, -0.0131 to -0.0035; p < 0.001) and specificity from 0.9659 to 0.9804 (p = 0.334). AI-assisted negative-screening can reduce ophthalmologist workload across multiple retinal diseases, but with disease-specific safety trade-offs: because AI-negative images are not reviewed, reduced sensitivity for DR and AMD means a small proportion of true-positive cases would go undetected, potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment for sight-threatening disease. These results support disease-specific implementation strategies that balance workload reduction against missed positive cases.
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.