Cited by 2,402Retinal Imaging and AnalysisRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsOphthalmology and Visual Health Research

Development and validation of a deep learning system for diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases using retinal images from multiethnic populations with diabetes

Open access
Ting, Daniel Shu Wei, Cheung, Carol Yim-Lui, Lim, Gilbert, Tan, Gavin Siew Wei, Quang, Nguyen D., Gan, Alfred, Hamzah, Haslina, Garcia-Franco, Renata +21 more·2017·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: A deep learning system (DLS) is a machine learning technology with potential for screening diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases. Objective: To evaluate the performance of a DLS in detecting referable diabetic retinopathy, vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, possible glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in community and clinic-based multiethnic populations with diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic performance of a DLS for diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases was evaluated using 494 661 retinal images. A DLS was trained for detecting diabetic retinopathy (using 76 370 images), possible glaucoma (125 189 images), and AMD (72 610 images), and performance of DLS was evaluated for detecting diabetic retinopathy (using 112 648 images), possible glaucoma (71 896 images), and AMD (35 948 images). Training of the DLS was completed in May 2016, and validation of the DLS was completed in May 2017 for detection of referable diabetic retinopathy (moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy or worse) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy or worse) using a primary validation data set in the Singapore National Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program and 10 multiethnic cohorts with diabetes. Exposures: Use of a deep learning system. Main Outcomes and Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and sensitivity and specificity of the DLS with professional graders (retinal specialists, general ophthalmologists, trained graders, or optometrists) as the reference standard. Results: In the primary validation dataset (n = 14 880 patients; 71 896 images; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [2.2] years; 54.6% men), the prevalence of referable diabetic retinopathy was 3.0%; vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, 0.6%; possible glaucoma, 0.1%; and AMD, 2.5%. The AUC of the DLS for referable diabetic retinopathy was 0.936 (95% CI, 0.925-0.943), sensitivity was 90.5% (95% CI, 87.3%-93.0%), and specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%). For vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, AUC was 0.958 (95% CI, 0.956-0.961), sensitivity was 100% (95% CI, 94.1%-100.0%), and specificity was 91.1% (95% CI, 90.7%-91.4%). For possible glaucoma, AUC was 0.942 (95% CI, 0.929-0.954), sensitivity was 96.4% (95% CI, 81.7%-99.9%), and specificity was 87.2% (95% CI, 86.8%-87.5%). For AMD, AUC was 0.931 (95% CI, 0.928-0.935), sensitivity was 93.2% (95% CI, 91.1%-99.8%), and specificity was 88.7% (95% CI, 88.3%-89.0%). For referable diabetic retinopathy in the 10 additional datasets, AUC range was 0.889 to 0.983 (n = 40 752 images). Conclusions and Relevance: In this evaluation of retinal images from multiethnic cohorts of patients with diabetes, the DLS had high sensitivity and specificity for identifying diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases. Further research is necessary to evaluate the applicability of the DLS in health care settings and the utility of the DLS to improve vision outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2017.18152

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Images obtained during diabetic retinopathy screening can be non-gradable due to poor image quality, patient movement, improper equipment use, or ocular media opacities such as cataracts.

    “Images obtained during DR screening can be non-gradable due to poor image quality, patient movement, improper equipment use, or ocular media opacities such as cataracts [42].”

    From Diabetic retinopathy screening model in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Definition of Referable Diabetic Retinopathy section says a photograph was ungradable if more than one-third was obscured. The Discussion also describes poorer-quality images, including ungradable ones, in a diabetic retinopathy screening program. Neither passage identifies patient movement, improper equipment use, cataracts, or other ocular media opacities as causes; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • UK and Australia recommendations suggested a minimum sensitivity of either 80% or 60%, and a specificity of at least 95%.

    “In the UK and Australia, previous recommendations suggested a minimum sensitivity of either 80% or 60%, and a specificity of at least 95%25–30.”

    From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Statistical Analysis section (page unavailable) reports minimum sensitivity recommendations of 60% in Australia and 80% in the UK for diabetic retinopathy screening. It does not state that either country recommended specificity of at least 95%; the specificity figures elsewhere in the paper describe screening performance, not those recommendations. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI-enabled diabetic retinopathy screening has progressed from retrospective validation to prospective and real-world deployment.

    “Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled retinal screening has progressed from retrospective validation to prospective and real-world deployment”

    From From validation to public health impact: implementing equitable AI-enabled diabetic retinopathy screening (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    The study’s aims and Discussion (page unavailable) describe validation using images from an ongoing Singapore screening program and 10 external datasets, extending earlier database-based validation to clinical screening settings. The Discussion examines how the system could be deployed, but our copy does not establish prospective evaluation or actual real-world deployment. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Ophthalmology systems show strong results in diabetic retinopathy detection and screening.

    “Dermatology studies demonstrate specialist-level classification of skin cancer [9], while ophthalmology systems show strong results in diabetic retinopathy detection and screening [10,11].”
  • Ting et al. reported that a CNN using retinal images for DR screening achieved an AUC of 0.936, sensitivity of 90.5%, and specificity of 91.6% for referable DR; and for vision-threatening DR, AUC was 0.958, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 91.1%.

    “the AUC of the system for referable DR was 0.936, sensitivity was 90.5%, and specificity was 91.6%; for vision-threatening DR, AUC was 0.958, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 91.1%”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ting, D. S. W., Cheung, C. Y.-L., Lim, G., Tan, G. S. W., Quang, N. D., Gan, A., Hamzah, H., Garcia-Franco, R., San Yeo, I. Y., Lee, S. Y., Wong, E. Y. M., Sabanayagam, C., Baskaran, M., Ibrahim, F., Tan, N. C., Finkelstein, E. A., Lamoureux, E. L., Wong, I. Y., Bressler, N. M., Sivaprasad, S., Varma, R., Jonas, J. B., He, M. G., Cheng, C.-Y., Cheung, G. C. M., Aung, T., Hsu, W., Lee, M. L., & Wong, T. Y.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Center, Singapore
  • Singapore National Eye Center (SG)
  • Instituto Mexicano De Oftalmologia, IAP, Queretaro, Mexico.
  • SingHealth (SG)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Johns Hopkins Medicine (US)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Centre, Sun Yatsen University, Guangzhou, China
Corresponding author
Wong, Tien Yin
Venue
JAMA
Published
2017-12-12
Volume
318
Issue
22
Pages
2211
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2772246530
Cited by
2,402
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 315 · 2025: 286 · 2024: 327 · 2023: 294 · 2022: 311 · 2021: 301 · 2020: 266 · 2019: 207 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
117.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Innovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • Tanoto Foundation
  • National Health Insurance Service
  • SingHealth Foundation
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Medical Research Council (IRG09-nov014, 09/1/35/19/616, IRG07nov013, (#CG/SERI/2010, 1409022)
  • Biomedical Research Council (IRG09nov014, IRG07nov013, CG/SERI/2010, 09/1/35/19/616)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy, referable diabetic retinopathy, vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, retinal image analysis, deep learning, automated disease detection, multi-ethnic population, diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy screening, diagnostic accuracy, multi-ethnic cohort, non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Retinopathy, Eye Diseases, Female, Glaucoma, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retina, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Area Under Curve, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review