Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone-based artificial intelligence systems for detecting diabetic retinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Aims Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a major cause of blindness globally, early detection is critical to prevent vision loss. Traditional screening that, rely on human experts are, however, costly, and time-consuming. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone-based artificial intelligence(AI) systems for DR detection. Methods Literature review was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane from inception to December 2022. We included diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating the use of smartphone-based AI algorithms for DR screening in patients with diabetes, with expert human grader as the reference standard. Random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity. Any DR(ADR) and referable DR(RDR) were analyzed separately. Results Out of 968 identified articles, six diagnostic test accuracy studies met our inclusion criteria, comprising 3,931 patients. Four of these studies used the Medios AI algorithm. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of ADR were 88 % and 91.5 % respectively and for diagnosis of RDR were 98.2 % and 81.2 % respectively. The overall risk of bias across the studies was low. Conclusions Smartphone-based AI algorithms show high diagnostic accuracy for detecting DR. However, more high-quality comparative studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness in real-world clinical settings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Smartphone-based AI systems have high diagnostic accuracy, especially for referable DR.
“Hasan and Siddiqui reported high diagnostic accuracy for smartphone-based systems, especially for referable DR (13).”
From From validation to public health impact: implementing equitable AI-enabled diabetic retinopathy screening (2026) · cites this paper as [13]
Cites
Global Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Projection of Burden through 2045
Teo, Z. L., Tham, Y.-C., Yu, M., Chee, M. L., Rim, T. H., Cheung, N., Bikbov, M. M., Wang, Y. X., Tang, Y., Lu, Y., et al. (2021) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.04.027 · Cited by 2,420 · see citing works
Abràmoff, M. D., Lou, Y., Erginay, A., Clarida, W., Amelon, R., Folk, J. C., & Niemeijer, M. (2016) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.16-19964 · Cited by 1,101 · see citing works
Transforming Diabetes Care Through Artificial Intelligence: The Future Is Here
Dankwa-Mullan, I., Rivo, M., Sepulveda, M., Park, Y., Snowdon, J., & Rhee, K. (2019) · Population Health Management · doi:10.1089/pop.2018.0129 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Bhaskaranand, M., Ramachandra, C., Bhat, S., Cuadros, J., Nittala, M. G., Sadda, S. R., & Solanki, K. (2019) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0164 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
PRISMA AI reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on AI in healthcare
Cacciamani, G. E., Chu, T. N., Sanford, D. I., Abreu, A., Duddalwar, V., Oberai, A., Kuo, C.-C. J., Liu, X., Denniston, A. K., Vasey, B., et al. (2023) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-02139-w · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cangelosi, G., Conti, A., Caggianelli, G., Panella, M., Petrelli, F., Mancin, S., Ratti, M., & Masini, A. (2025) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina61081403 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“This confirms what has already been observed in international studies, which emphasize the need for rigorous clinical validation before the large-scale deployment of AI systems [61,62].”
Evaluation of ChatGPT-4 in detecting referable diabetic retinopathy using single fundus images
Aftab, O., Khan, H., VanderBeek, B. L., Scoles, D., Kim, B. J., & Tsui, J. C. (2025) · AJO International · doi:10.1016/j.ajoint.2025.100111 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Chen, J., & Chen, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1976572
- Authors
- Hasan, S. U., & Siddiqui, M. A. R.
- Affiliations
- Aga Khan University Hospital (PK)
- Corresponding author
- Siddiqui, M.A. Rehman
- Venue
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-11
- Volume
- 205
- Pages
- 110943
- ISSN
- 0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387358833
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6
- FWCI
- 0.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- diabetic retinopathy, automated retinal analysis, diagnostic accuracy, referable diabetic retinopathy, diabetic retinopathy screening, sensitivity and specificity
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity
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