Evidence mapPaperPMID 40334205Full record

ArticleRetina (Philadelphia, Pa.)2025

Targeted Interventions Lead to Quality Improvement in Year 2 of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Detection Program in Northern California.

Karen M Chen, Cindy S Zhao, Austen Knapp, Eliot Dow, Anuradha Phadke, Marilyn Tan, Kaniksha Desai, Christopher Or, Vinit Mahajan, Diana V Do and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Artificial intelligence in preventive care in primary health care settings: a scoping review.Archives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Karen M ChenByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Cindy S ZhaoByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Austen KnappByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Eliot DowByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Anuradha PhadkeDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Marilyn TanDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Kaniksha DesaiDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Christopher OrByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Vinit MahajanByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Diana V DoByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Prithvi MruthyunjayaByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
Theodore LengByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.
David MyungByers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California 94303.

Funding

Stanford Islet Research CoreP30DK116074 · NIDDK · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Seung K Kim · 2017 to 2026
$19.5M
Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Alfredo Dubra · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK116074
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study evaluates the second-year outcomes of an AI-based diabetic retinopathy (DR) detection program (Stanford Teleophthalmology Autonomous Testing and Universal Screening (STATUS)) implemented in primary care and endocrinology clinics in Northern California. We focused on assessing improvements following implementation of an intervention-based framework to increase AI system gradability and patient encounters.

methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted involving diabetic patients aged 18 years and older with no prior DR diagnosis or examination in the past year. These patients presented for routine DR screening in primary care or endocrinology clinics. In its second year, the STATUS program expanded to additional sites and introduced an intervention-based framework, including targeted training protocols, to enhance screening accuracy and efficiency. Our study measured AI system gradability and tracked patient encounters over Year 2.

resultsThe AI system's gradability increased from 62.3% in Year 1 to 71.2% in Year 2, comparable to non-mydriatic gradability rates observed in clinical trials. Patient encounters increased by 21.9%, indicating expanded reach and improved accessibility. Interventions, including enhanced training protocols and camera utilization reports, effectively improved screening efficiency.

conclusionThe second-year outcomes of the STATUS AI-based DR screening program demonstrate significant improvements in image gradability by the AI system as well as in patient encounter numbers. These findings highlight the potential of interventional methods to continually improve the outcomes of AI-based screening programs and offer a scalable solution to the growing burden of diabetic retinopathy. The success of STATUS supports further integration and expansion of AI-based screening in clinical practice for early detection and management of DR, improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

AI-Human HybridArtificial IntelligenceClinical Artificial IntelligenceDiabetic RetinopathyDR Screening ProgramPrimary CareTeleophthalmology

Identifiers

PMID40334205
PMCPMC13267010

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.