ArticleScientific reports2026
Real-world performance of the AI diagnostic system IDx-DR in the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy and its main confounders.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The escalating prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) emphasizes the critical need for early detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR). This study assesses the performance of the autonomous AI-based diagnostic system IDx-DR in detecting DR and its associated confounders in a real-world clinical setting. This prospective cross-sectional study involved 875 diabetic patients with a mean age of 52 years (range: 8-92). Retinal images were captured by trained assistants. IDx-DR results were compared with mydriatic fundus examination (gold standard) and Ophthalmologists' image analysis. Factors impacting image acquisition or analyzability were examined. Among all patients, 10.5% yielded no image in miosis, and 26.1% were unanalyzable by IDx-DR. Confounders affecting image acquisition were examiner, pupil size, patient age and patients' visual acuity. When good quality images were achieved, IDx-DR performed well, particularly in detection of severe DR (sensitivity 94.4%; specificity 90.5%). IDx-DR results exactly matched Ophthalmologists' mydriatic fundoscopy gradings in 54.2% if images of sufficient quality were obtainable. Undergrading of DR severity by IDx-DR was rare (4.8%). IDx-DR shows promise in detecting DR, especially in resource-limited settings and in detecting severe DR. One remaining challenge is good image acquisition in miotic patients.
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.