Cited by 24Retinal Imaging and AnalysisOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Diabetic Retinopathy Telemedicine Outcomes With Artificial Intelligence-Based Image Analysis, Reflex Dilation, and Image Overread

Mehra, Ankur A., Softing, Alaina, Guner, Melis Kabaalioglu, Hodge, David O., Barkmeier, Andrew J.·2022·American Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

Purpose To examine real-world telemedicine outcomes of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening with artificial intelligence (AI)-based image analysis, reflex dilation, and secondary image overread in a primary care setting. Design Validity and reliability analysis. Methods Single institution review of 1052 consecutive adult patients who received diabetic retinopathy photoscreening in the primary care setting over an 18-month period. Nonmydriatic fundus photographs were acquired and analyzed by the IDx-DR AI-based system. When nonmydriatic images were ungradable, reflex dilation (1% tropicamide) and mydriatic photography were performed for repeat AI-based analysis. Manual overread was performed on all images. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and screening outcomes were recorded. Results A total of 965 of 1052 patients (91.7%) had AI-gradable fundus photographs: 580 had gradable nonmydriatic imaging (55.1%) and 440 of 472 patients with ungradable nonmydriatic photographs had reflex dilation (93.2%). One hundred thirty-eight of 965 patients (14.3%) were AI-graded as "positive" (greater than mild NPDR) and 827 of 965 were "negative" (85.7%), with 100% sensitivity (95% CI 90.8-100%), 89.2% specificity (95% CI 87.0-91.1%), 27.5% positive predictive value (95% CI 24.0-31.4%), and 100% negative predictive value (95% CI 99.6-100%) compared with manual overread assessment of greater than mild NPDR requiring further evaluation with a comprehensive dilated examination. Image g…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajo.2022.08.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 27 · Cited by 24

Authors
Mehra, A. A., Softing, A., Guner, M. K., Hodge, D. O., & Barkmeier, A. J.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Barkmeier, Andrew J.
Venue
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
244
Pages
125-132
ISSN
0002-9394 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4291110527
Cited by
24
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy screening, telemedicine, artificial intelligence, non-mydriatic fundus photography, tropicamide, primary care, non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, screening accuracy, false-negative results
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Intelligence, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Retinopathy, Dilatation, Humans, Mass Screening, Photography, Reflex, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Telemedicine

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