Cited by 638Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRetinal Imaging and AnalysisArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

A Human-Centered Evaluation of a Deep Learning System Deployed in Clinics for the Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy

Open access
Beede, Emma, Baylor, Elizabeth, Hersch, Fred, Iurchenko, Anna, Wilcox, Lauren, Ruamviboonsuk, Paisan, Vardoulakis, Laura M.·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Deep learning algorithms promise to improve clinician workflows and patient outcomes. However, these gains have yet to be fully demonstrated in real world clinical settings. In this paper, we describe a human-centered study of a deep learning system used in clinics for the detection of diabetic eye disease. From interviews and observation across eleven clinics in Thailand, we characterize current eye-screening workflows, user expectations for an AI-assisted screening process, and post-deployment experiences. Our findings indicate that several socio-environmental factors impact model performance, nursing workflows, and the patient experience. We draw on these findings to reflect on the value of conducting human-centered evaluative research alongside prospective evaluations of model accuracy.

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 · 10.1145/3313831.3376718

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Many empirical studies on human-AI decision-making did not observe complementary performance.

    “However, many empirical studies on human-AI decision-making did not observe complementary performance [6,16,37,52,58,61,68,82,84,87].”

    From Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations (2023) · cites this paper as [6]

    The “Challenges evaluating AI in clinical settings” section reports that mammography computer-aided detection generally did not improve radiologists’ diagnostic accuracy. That supports an example of human–AI assistance failing to improve performance, but this paper does not establish the broader claim that many empirical studies found no complementary performance, nor does it report a comparative performance result for its own deployment. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Clinical usefulness of AI depends on calibration, interpretability, and integration into existing workflows.

    “Clinical usefulness depends on calibration, interpretability, and integration into existing workflows [23,24].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications, Validation Gaps, Bias, and Deployment Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says implementation is as important as algorithm accuracy and that clinical conditions affected use and performance; it also calls for reevaluating system thresholds. Expectations for AI-assisted screening (page unavailable) describes displaying images alongside predictions to help nurses use the results. These passages support workflow integration and aspects of making results understandable, but do not establish calibration and interpretability as the three stated requirements for clinical usefulness. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Distrust challenges the adoption of machine learning-based CDSSs.

    “Such distrust has been shown to challenge the adoption of machine learning–based CDSSs [7-10]”

    From Factors influencing clinician trust in predictive clinical decision support systems for in-hospital deterioration: qualitative descriptive study (2022) · cites this paper as [8]

    In “Consenting patients” (page not provided), the paper says nurses considered their trust in the deep learning system’s results when deciding whether to follow the study protocol. It does not establish that distrust challenged adoption of machine-learning CDSSs generally; the observed discouragement of participation was attributed primarily to concern about patient hardship. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Involving stakeholders is important for the design and evaluation of a system.

    “there has been increasing recent research efforts [8, 15, 22, 41, 58, 65] that highlight the importance of involving stakeholders to understand their practices and needs [15, 41, 65] and socio-environmental factors [8] for the design and evaluation of a system.”
  • Adoption in clinical practice is influenced by clinician interaction with AI systems, including trust and workflow compatibility.

    “Adoption in clinical practice is influenced by clinician interaction with AI systems, including trust and workflow compatibility [23,27].”

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: 2

  1. [23]23. Jenchitr W, Hanutsaha P, Iamsirithaworn S, Parnrat U, Choosri P. 2007. The national survey of blindness low vision and visual impairment in thailand 2006-2007. Thai J Pub Hlth Ophthalmol 21, 1 (2007), 10.
  2. [33]33. Paisan Raumviboonsuk, Jonathan Krause, Peranut Chotcomwongse, Rory Sayres, Rajiv Raman, Kasumi Widner, Bilson JL Campana, Sonia Phene, Kornwipa Hemarat, Mongkol Tadarati, and others. 2019. Deep learning versus human graders for classifying diabetic retinopathy severity in a nationwide screening program. npj Digital Medicine 2, 1 (2019), 25.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beede, E., Baylor, E., Hersch, F., Iurchenko, A., Wilcox, L., Ruamviboonsuk, P., & Vardoulakis, L. M.
Affiliations
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Google (Singapore) (SG)
  • Rajavithi Hospital (TH)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-21
Pages
1-12
OpenAlex
W3004483087
Cited by
614
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 85 · 2025: 115 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 28
FWCI
39.56
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy detection, human-centered evaluation, AI-assisted screening, nursing workflow, patient experience, socio-environmental factors

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