ArticleJournal of diabetes research2020
Longitudinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy in a Nationwide Screening Program: Comparing Deep Learning and Human Graders.
Article in Journal of diabetes research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence versus manual screening for the detection of diabetic retinopathy: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- REAL-WORLD PRACTICE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM FOR DIABETIC RETINOPATHY IN TAIWAN.Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Performance of a Deep Learning Diabetic Retinopathy Algorithm in India.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Sharing reliable information worldwide: healthcare strategies based on artificial intelligence need external validation. Position paper.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence for diabetic retinopathy in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2023Article
- Variability in Grading Diabetic Retinopathy Using Retinal Photography and Its Comparison with an Automated Deep Learning Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Software.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Calibrating a Transformer-Based Model's Confidence on Community-Engaged Research Studies: Decision Support Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- DsbA-L Ameliorates Renal Injury Through the AMPK/NLRP3 Inflammasome Signaling Pathway in Diabetic Nephropathy.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- An Effective Method for Detecting and Classifying Diabetic Retinopathy Lesions Based on Deep Learning.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening via deep learning (DL) and trained human graders (HG) in a longitudinal cohort, as case spectrum shifts based on treatment referral and new-onset DR.
methodsWe randomly selected patients with diabetes screened twice, two years apart within a nationwide screening program. The reference standard was established via adjudication by retina specialists. Each patient's color fundus photographs were graded, and a patient was considered as having sight-threatening DR (STDR) if the worse eye had severe nonproliferative DR, proliferative DR, or diabetic macular edema. We compared DR screening via two modalities: DL and HG. For each modality, we simulated treatment referral by excluding patients with detected STDR from the second screening using that modality.
resultsThere were 5,738 patients (12.3% STDR) in the first screening. DL and HG captured different numbers of STDR cases, and after simulated referral and excluding ungradable cases, 4,148 and 4,263 patients remained in the second screening, respectively. The STDR prevalence at the second screening was 5.1% and 6.8% for DL- and HG-based screening, respectively. Along with the prevalence decrease, the sensitivity for both modalities decreased from the first to the second screening (DL: from 95% to 90%,
conclusionOn 2-year longitudinal follow-up of a DR screening cohort, STDR prevalence decreased for both DL- and HG-based screening. Follow-up screenings in longitudinal DR screening can be more difficult and induce lower sensitivity for both DL and HG, though the false negative rate was substantially lower for DL. Our data may be useful for health-economics analyses of longitudinal screening settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.