Cited by 89Retinal Imaging and AnalysisHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence screening for diabetic retinopathy in rural China

Open access
Huang, Xiao-Mei, Yang, Bo-Fan, Zheng, Wen-Lin, Liu, Qun, Xiao, Fan, Ouyang, Pei-Wen, Li, Mei-Jun, Li, Xiu-Yun +4 more·2022·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) has become a leading cause of global blindness as a microvascular complication of diabetes. Regular screening of diabetic retinopathy is strongly recommended for people with diabetes so that timely treatment can be provided to reduce the incidence of visual impairment. However, DR screening is not well carried out due to lack of eye care facilities, especially in the rural areas of China. Artificial intelligence (AI) based DR screening has emerged as a novel strategy and show promising diagnostic performance in sensitivity and specificity, relieving the pressure of the shortage of facilities and ophthalmologists because of its quick and accurate diagnosis. In this study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of AI screening for DR in rural China based on Markov model, providing evidence for extending use of AI screening for DR. Methods: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of AI screening and compared it with ophthalmologist screening in which fundus images are evaluated by ophthalmologists. We developed a Markov model-based hybrid decision tree to analyze the costs, effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AI screening strategies relative to no screening strategies and ophthalmologist screening strategies (dominated) over 35 years (mean life expectancy of diabetes patients in rural China). The analysis was conducted from the health system perspective (included direct medical costs) and societal perspective (included medical and nonmedical costs). Effectiveness was analyzed with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The robustness of results was estimated by performing one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic analysis. Results: From the health system perspective, AI screening and ophthalmologist screening had incremental costs of $180.19 and $215.05 but more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with no screening. AI screening had an ICER of $1,107.63. From the societal perspective which considers all direct and indirect costs, AI screening had an ICER of $10,347.12 compared with no screening, below the cost-effective threshold (1–3 times per capita GDP of Chinese in 2019). Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates that AI-based screening is more cost-effective compared with conventional ophthalmologist screening and holds great promise to be an alternative approach for DR screening in the rural area of China.

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 · 10.1186/s12913-022-07655-6

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • The transition rate from non-referable DR to referable DR in China was estimated as 7%.

    “To capture the general progression rate of DR in China, we estimated the transition rates from non-referable DR to referable DR as 7%.”

    From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    Table 1 (Methods, Model inputs; page unavailable) assigns 7% to progression from no DR to mild DR, not from non-referable to referable DR. It lists 19% for mild-to-moderate DR and 17% for moderate-to-vision-threatening DR. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Xie et al. and Huang et al. found that AI-driven models for diabetic retinopathy screening reduced per-patient screening costs by 14-19.5% and achieved ICERs as low as $1107.63 per QALY.

    “both Xie et al.23 and Huang et al.36 found that AI-driven models reduced per-patient screening costs by 14–19.5% and achieved ICERs as low as $1107.63 per QALY.”

    From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as Huang et al.36

    The Results (Cost-effectiveness analysis; page unavailable) report an ICER of $1,107.63 per QALY for AI screening versus no screening. The Discussion reports lower costs than ophthalmologist screening, but Huang et al. do not report a 19.5% reduction in per-patient screening costs; the 14.3% saving mentioned there is attributed to Xie et al. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Xie et al. and Huang et al. showed that performance differences between semi-automated and fully automated AI models directly impacted cost per patient and ICERs.

    “the performance differences between semi-automated and fully automated AI models—as shown by Xie et al.23 and Huang et al.36 —directly impacted cost per patient and ICERs”

    From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as Huang et al.36

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports lower per-patient grading costs for AI than for ophthalmologist screening, and the Results > Cost-effectiveness analysis reports an ICER for AI screening. The paper does not compare semi-automated with fully automated AI models or show that performance differences between those models directly affected costs or ICERs; it mentions those model types separately when discussing other studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most previous health economic studies in China leaned towards adopting AI models with a high specificity (over 97%).

    “Most of these studies leaned towards adopting AI models with a high specificity (over 97%).”

    From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Methods > Model inputs table assigns AI screening a specificity of 98.50% in this rural-China economic evaluation. The paper does not establish that most previous health economic studies in China adopted models with specificity over 97%; it provides one example, not a pattern across studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous health economic studies in China have only compared a specific AI-based screening strategy with conventional manual screening.

    “Previous health economic studies in China have only compared a specific AI-based screening strategy with conventional manual screening, to indicate the cost-effectiveness of using AI for screening DR14,15,37–39.”

    From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Methods and Results describe a cost-effectiveness comparison of AI screening with ophthalmologist screening, which supports the claim’s core comparison. But they also compare AI screening with no screening, so this study does not support the word “only.” (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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. [20]Ming S Xie KP Lei X Yang YR Zhao ZX Li SY Evaluation of a novel artificial intelligence-based screening system for diabetic retinopathy in community of China: a real-world study Int Ophthalmol 2021 41 4 1291 9 33389425
  2. [23]He J Cao T Xu F Wang S Tao H Wu T Artificial intelligence-based screening for diabetic retinopathy at community hospital Eye (Lond) 2020 34 3 572 576 31455902 PMC7042314
  3. [26]Zhang WJ Wei M The evaluation of the mortality and life expectancy of chinese population Population Journal 2016 38 03 18 28
  4. [34]Tang J Liang Y O'Neill C Kee F Jiang J Congdon N Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of population-based glaucoma screening in China a decision-analytic Markov model Lancet Global Health 2019 7 7 e968 e978 31122906
  5. [41]Xie Y Nguyen QD Hamzah H Lim G Bellemo V Gunasekeran DV Artificial intelligence for teleophthalmology-based diabetic retinopathy screening in a national programme: an economic analysis modelling study Lancet Digital Health 2020 2 5 E240 E249 33328056

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, X.-M., Yang, B.-F., Zheng, W.-L., Liu, Q., Xiao, F., Ouyang, P.-W., Li, M.-J., Li, X.-Y., Meng, J., Zhang, T.-T., Cui, Y.-H., & Pan, H.-W.
Affiliations
Jinan University (CN)
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2022-02-25
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
260-260
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214726824
Cited by
89
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 1
FWCI
10.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National College Students Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program (S202010559065)
  • Guangdong Medical Research Fund (A2019158)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy, artificial intelligence screening, cost-effectiveness, rural China, fundus images, quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, Markov model, hybrid decision tree, blindness prevention, ophthalmologist shortage
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, China, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, Mass Screening, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

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