ArticleScientific reports2026
A prospective study for validating an automated AI-based system for detecting age-related macular degeneration in clinical settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Early detection is essential for implementing preventative measures that can slow or stop the progression of late AMD. This study evaluates the performance of an AI-based system designed to detect referable AMD, defined as more than early AMD (mteAMD), in adults over 50 who have not been previously diagnosed. Using color fundus photographs, we recruited 845 subjects from three primary care and three general ophthalmology clinics in New York City. Non-dilated images of both eyes were taken, and for validation, dilated images were reviewed by three ophthalmologists who classified the cases as no AMD, early, intermediate, or late AMD. The system's performance was assessed on both a per-patient and per-eye basis, comparing its results to expert gradings using metrics such as AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. For identifying mteAMD at the subject level, the AI system achieved an AUC of 0.92, with a sensitivity of 90.27% and specificity of 83.36%, demonstrating its strong potential for early diagnosis and screening of AMD in real-world clinical settings.
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.