Cited by 283Retinal Imaging and AnalysisRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsOphthalmology and Visual Health Research

Automated Diabetic Retinopathy Image Assessment Software

Open access
Tufail, Adnan, Rudisill, Caroline, Egan, Catherine, Kapetanakis, Venediktos V., Salas-Vega, Sebastian, Owen, Christopher G., Lee, Aaron, Louw, Vern +8 more·2017·Ophthalmology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: With the increasing prevalence of diabetes, annual screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) by expert human grading of retinal images is challenging. Automated DR image assessment systems (ARIAS) may provide clinically effective and cost-effective detection of retinopathy. We aimed to determine whether ARIAS can be safely introduced into DR screening pathways to replace human graders. DESIGN: Observational measurement comparison study of human graders following a national screening program for DR versus ARIAS. PARTICIPANTS: Retinal images from 20 258 consecutive patients attending routine annual diabetic eye screening between June 1, 2012, and November 4, 2013. METHODS: Retinal images were manually graded following a standard national protocol for DR screening and were processed by 3 ARIAS: iGradingM, Retmarker, and EyeArt. Discrepancies between manual grades and ARIAS results were sent to a reading center for arbitration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening performance (sensitivity, false-positive rate) and diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence intervals of screening-performance measures) were determined. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome. RESULTS: Sensitivity point estimates (95% confidence intervals) of the ARIAS were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (94.2%-95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (92.9%-94.6%) for referable retinopathy (human graded as either ungradable, maculopathy, preproliferative, or proliferative), 99.6% (97.0%-99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; Retmarker 73.0% (72.0 %-74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (83.6%-86.2%) for referable retinopathy, 97.9% (94.9%-99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either having disease or being ungradable. EyeArt and Retmarker saved costs compared with manual grading both as a replacement for initial human grading and as a filter prior to primary human grading, although the latter approach was less cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Retmarker and EyeArt systems achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy when compared with that of human graders and had sufficient specificity to make them cost-effective alternatives to manual grading alone. ARIAS have the potential to reduce costs in developed-world health care economies and to aid delivery of DR screening in developing or remote health care settings.

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 · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.014

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • Similar cost-effectiveness of autonomous AI testing has been demonstrated in Europe.

    “Similar cost-effectiveness has been demonstrated in Europe.64”

    From Autonomous Artificial Intelligence in Diabetic Retinopathy Testing—Lessons Learned on Successful Health System Adoption (2026) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Health Economic Analysis evaluates automated diabetic-retinopathy screening in the UK, and the Results report lower costs than manual grading. But the Results also find that both systems were less likely to classify disease correctly; the paper does not establish unqualified cost-effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report number 1. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study research group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(12):1796-1806.
  2. Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(4):477-485.
  3. Kinyoun JL, Martin DC, Fujimoto WY, Leonetti DL. Ophthalmoscopy versus fundus photographs for detecting and grading diabetic retinopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992;33(6):1888-1893.
  4. Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S. Applied Methods of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Healthcare. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2011.
  5. Wu B, Li J, Wu H. Strategies to screen for diabetic retinopathy in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(45):e1989.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tufail, A., Rudisill, C., Egan, C., Kapetanakis, V. V., Salas-Vega, S., Owen, C. G., Lee, A., Louw, V., Anderson, J., Liew, G., Bolter, L., Srinivas, S., Nittala, M., Sadda, S., Taylor, P., & Rudnicka, A. R.
Affiliations
  • NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Homerton University Hospital (GB)
  • Doheny Eye Institute (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Tufail, Adnan
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
124
Issue
3
Pages
343-351
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2561588396
Cited by
283
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
15.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (11/21/02)
  • Carl Zeiss Meditec AG
  • Heidelberg Engineering
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • Genentech
  • Allergan
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, retinal image analysis, diabetic retinopathy screening, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, diagnostic accuracy, cost-effectiveness, screening sensitivity and specificity, preproliferative diabetic retinopathy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Trees, Diabetic Retinopathy, Economics, Medical, False Negative Reactions, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Physical Examination, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Reproducibility of Results

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