Cited by 31Retinal Imaging and AnalysisRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Feasibility and acceptance of artificial intelligence-based diabetic retinopathy screening in Rwanda

Open access
Whitestone, Noelle, Nkurikiye, John, Patnaik, Jennifer L, Jaccard, Nicolas, Lanouette, Gabriella, Cherwek, David H, Congdon, Nathan, Mathenge, Wanjiku·2024·British Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the practical application of artificial intelligence (AI)-based diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening is needed. METHODS: Consented participants were screened for DR using retinal imaging with AI interpretation from March 2021 to June 2021 at four diabetes clinics in Rwanda. Additionally, images were graded by a UK National Health System-certified retinal image grader. DR grades based on the International Classification of Diabetic Retinopathy with a grade of 2.0 or higher were considered referable. The AI system was designed to detect optic nerve and macular anomalies outside of DR. A vertical cup to disc ratio of 0.7 and higher and/or macular anomalies recognised at a cut-off of 60% and higher were also considered referable by AI. RESULTS: Among 827 participants (59.6% women (n=493)) screened by AI, 33.2% (n=275) were referred for follow-up. Satisfaction with AI screening was high (99.5%, n=823), and 63.7% of participants (n=527) preferred AI over human grading. Compared with human grading, the sensitivity of the AI for referable DR was 92% (95% CI 0.863%, 0.968%), with a specificity of 85% (95% CI 0.751%, 0.882%). Of the participants referred by AI: 88 (32.0%) were for DR only, 109 (39.6%) for DR and an anomaly, 65 (23.6%) for an anomaly only and 13 (4.73%) for other reasons. Adherence to referrals was highest for those referred for DR at 53.4%. CONCLUSION: DR screening using AI led to accurate referrals from diabetes clinics in Rwanda and high rates of participant satisfaction, suggesting AI screening for DR is practical and acceptable.

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 · 10.1136/bjo-2022-322683

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Real-world implementation of diabetic retinopathy screening with artificial intelligence-assisted care pathways has accelerated globally since 2020.

    “Real-world implementation of DR screening with AI-assisted care pathways has accelerated globally since 20208,13–22, yet evidence on clinical and health system outcomes such as referral uptake remains limited.”

    From Referral uptake after diabetic retinopathy screening with artificial intelligence-assisted care pathways: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Abstract describes AI-based diabetic retinopathy screening at four clinics in Rwanda from March to June 2021, providing a real-world example after 2020. It does not establish that implementation accelerated globally or compare implementation rates over time. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Multiple artificial intelligence algorithms have been developed and validated for diabetic retinopathy screening.

    “Multiple artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been developed and validated for DR5–8 screening and it is the most frequently implemented deep learning application in prospective real-world studies9.”

    From Referral uptake after diabetic retinopathy screening with artificial intelligence-assisted care pathways: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Abstract reports a diabetic-retinopathy screening study using an AI system and compares its results with human grading, supporting validation of one system. The passages in our copy do not establish that multiple algorithms have been developed and validated. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Artificial intelligence is an accurate screening tool for diabetic retinopathy.

    “Artificial intelligence (AI) is an accurate screening tool for diabetic retinopathy (DR), the leading cause of blindness among working-aged adults.”
  • AI-enabled screening may be particularly valuable for rural and remote populations, low-income patients, older adults, and people who face long travel distances or limited specialist availability.

    “It may be particularly valuable for rural and remote populations, lowincome patients, older adults, and people who face long travel distances or limited specialist availability (28)(29)(30).”

    From From validation to public health impact: implementing equitable AI-enabled diabetic retinopathy screening (2026) · cites this paper as [28]

    The available Abstract reports AI-based diabetic retinopathy screening at four diabetes clinics in Rwanda, but does not say it is particularly valuable for the listed populations or people facing travel and specialist-access barriers. Searches for rural and remote populations, low income, older adults, travel distance, and specialist availability found no passage addressing that claim; the available abstract text ends mid-sentence. (LLM, conf=0.68)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whitestone, N., Nkurikiye, J., Patnaik, J. L., Jaccard, N., Lanouette, G., Cherwek, D. H., Congdon, N., & Mathenge, W.
Affiliations
  • Rwanda Military Hospital (RW)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
Corresponding author
Mathenge, Wanjiku
Venue
British Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2023-08-04
Volume
108
Issue
6
Pages
840-845
ISSN
  • 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2079
OpenAlex
W4385575330
Cited by
31
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
FWCI
5.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • British Journal of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Roche Award (N/A)
  • Orbis International (N/A)
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 screening, artificial intelligence, referable diabetic retinopathy, participant satisfaction, referral adherence, cup-to-disc ratio, Rwanda, resource-limited settings
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, Diabetic Retinopathy, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Rwanda

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