ArticleRetina (Philadelphia, Pa.)2026
REAL-WORLD PRACTICE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM FOR DIABETIC RETINOPATHY IN TAIWAN.
Article in Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.), 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.
- Research Progress of Diabetes-related Glaucoma: Mechanisms, Impacts and Management Strategies.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe authors evaluated the alterations of applying artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system for diabetic retinopathy screening in real-world practice.
methodsThis retrospective study included 11,713 diabetic patients from the government-led Diabetes Shared Care Network. The AI system VeriSee DR was integrated into the clinical workflow to identify referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR). Its performance was compared with ophthalmologist grading at the patient level using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Subgroup analysis was performed by age and sex, with additional referral diseases identified by ophthalmologists.
resultsVeriSee DR achieved a sensitivity of 0.88, specificity of 0.86, accuracy of 0.86, positive predictive value of 0.58, negative predictive value of 0.97, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87 in detecting RDR. Performance declined with increasing age, whereas sex distribution remained consistent across age groups. The AI system identified a higher proportion of RDR than ophthalmologists (27.45% vs. 18.15%). In addition to 1,818 patients with RDR, ophthalmologists identified other referral-warranted ocular conditions in 4.5% of cases. The AI system referred age-related macular degeneration (Grades 2-4), whereas referral decisions for macular hole and macular edema (Grades 1-2) varied; however, glaucoma (Grades 0-1) identified by clinicians was not consistently referred.
conclusionVeriSee DR demonstrated high accuracy in detecting RDR but exhibited reduced performance in older patients. It had a higher referral rate than ophthalmologists yet missed certain conditions such as glaucoma. Despite effectiveness in diabetic retinopathy screening, further refinement is required to support broader ophthalmic disease detection.
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.