ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of regulator-approved deep learning systems for fundus diabetic retinopathy detections.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Rethinking scale in ophthalmic artificial intelligence: from bigger models to smarter clinical reasoning.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To clarify the real-world performance of regulator-approved deep-learning (DL) systems for autonomous diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 3 April 2025, identifying 82 studies (887,244 examinations) covering 25 devices in 28 countries. Hierarchical bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled sensitivity/specificity of 0.93/0.90 on a per-patient basis and 0.92/0.93 per eye, closely paralleling expert grading. Meta-regression showed that DR severity threshold, national-income level, image gradability, pupil dilation, reference standard, and diagnostic criteria collectively explained most between-study heterogeneity; any-DR screening, low-income settings, or ungradable images increased false-positive rates, whereas dilated pupils, portable cameras, and adjudicated references improved specificity. Publication bias was minimal. Overall, regulator-approved DL algorithms provide accurate, scalable DR detection, but programs must tailor deployment and reimbursement to disease threshold, image quality, and local resources, and post-market audits with standardized gradability metrics are needed to ensure safe, equitable global adoption.
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.