ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Ocular Factors Affecting AI Diagnosis in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening for Resource-Limited Regions: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of vision loss among working-age adults worldwide. AI-assisted automated image reading has effectively alleviated the human resource challenges in large-scale remote screenings, yet there is limited analysis on the impact of complex ocular factors on the diagnostic efficacy of AI. Objective: This study aimed to systematically analyze the impact of multiple ocular factors on the diagnostic efficacy of the EVisionAI system in detecting DR and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) during large-scale screening of residents with diabetes in resource-limited regions. Methods: This cross-sectional study used a multistage stratified random sampling method to screen residents with type 2 diabetes at primary health centers in resource-limited regions. Data collection involved structured questionnaires (for basic and disease information), hemoglobin A Results: Between October 21 and November 12, 2024, 1847 participants with type 2 diabetes (aged 32-91 years) were enrolled, of whom 1748 (94.6%) completed the screening process and 3392 eyes were eligible for DR analysis. Participants had a mean age of 67.17 (SD 8.52) years and mean diabetes duration of 9.13 (SD 6.97) years, with 19.2% (335/1748) having DR and 7.4% (129/1748) having VTDR. Although EVisionAI's diagnostic efficacy was comparable to that of ophthalmologists (sensitivity: 90.61%, 95% CI 87.89%-92.79%; specificity: 98.99%, 95% CI 98.52%-99.31%), some ocular factors-including pupil size, refractive media opacity, and tessellated fundus (TF)-significantly impaired its efficiency. Severe refractive media opacity and TF reduced its sensitivity to 80.95% and 82.86%, respectively, and these factors interfered more with early-stage DR detection than VTDR (97.45% detected), particularly in eyes with severe TF changes (sensitivity decreased to 60.71%). Most notably, severe vitreous degeneration-induced opacity almost invariably led to VTDR misdiagnosis. Additionally, pupil dilation improved the sensitivity of EVisionAI for diagnosing DR (excluding early-stage DR) but had minimal impact on specificity. Conclusions: EVisionAI achieved high diagnostic accuracy for large-scale DR screening in resource-limited regions, yet its performance for early-stage disease was diminished by severe ocular factors. Optimizing for these factors is therefore essential to maximize its clinical utility in primary care settings with limited specialist access.
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.