Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41140908›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science2026

Autonomous Artificial Intelligence in Diabetic Retinopathy Testing-Lessons Learned on Successful Health System Adoption.

Clare W Teng, Saawan D Patel, Andrew J Barkmeier, T Y Alvin Liu, David Myung, Jeffrey Henderer, James Liu, Eric Hansen, Lama A Al-Aswad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Ophthalmic screening in phakomatoses.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Clare W TengDepartment of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Saawan D PatelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Andrew J BarkmeierDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
T Y Alvin LiuWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
David MyungByers Eye Institute at Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.
Jeffrey HendererDepartment of Ophthalmology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
James LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Eric HansenJohn A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Lama A Al-AswadDepartment of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI)-aided diabetic retinopathy (DR) testing systems have been commercialized for 5 years, but adoption is still relatively limited. This article aims to summarize the evidence in clinical settings, describe the current state of adoption, and share themes of successful implementation. Design: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. Participants: Ophthalmologists. Methods: We performed literature review and conducted interviews with ophthalmologists leading implementation of AI-aided DR testing programs at several academic health systems. The study focused on the 3 currently US Food and Drug Administration-cleared AI systems: LumineticsCore, EyeArt, and AEYE Diagnostic Screening (AEYE-DS), assessing their performance and strategies utilized by health systems to effectively implement this technology in clinics. Main Outcome Measures: Diagnostic accuracy data, ophthalmologist feedback. Results: The literature review found 6 publications reporting diagnostic accuracy data of autonomous AI DR testing in primary care office settings, including 5 for LumineticsCore and 1 for EyeArt. Additional articles, of which 18 were selected for detailed review, addressed impact on patient adherence, health equity, and carbon footprint, as well as cost-effectiveness and workflow efficiency analyses. There were no studies comparing the systems on the same patients. In aggregate, adopters of the AI systems reported average nonmydriatic gradability of 49% to 75% (n = 5), sensitivity 87% to 100% (n = 3), and specificity 60% to 91% (n = 4). Based on public records at the time of writing, both LumineticsCore and EyeArt have >5 academic adopters in the United States. Limited information is available on AEYE-DS given recency of regulatory clearance. Elements of successful implementation include proper site selection, aligning AI tools with primary care clinic workflows, streamlining patient engagement and referrals, and ongoing training of staff. Health systems utilizing AI reported improved Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measures, health equity, productivity, and patient adherence to follow-up with ophthalmology. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence-aided diabetic eye examinations present a promising solution to facilitate early detection of DR, promote equitable access, and drive down system-level cost of care. Its successful implementation requires addressing technological, operational, and stakeholder engagement challenges. Our study underscores the potential of AI to revolutionize care delivery provided its adoption is strategically managed. Financial Disclosures: The author has no/the authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Indexed as

Autonomous artificial intelligenceDiabetic retinopathy testingHealth system adoptionSuccess factorsValue propositions

Identifiers

PMID41140908
PMCPMC12553049

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.