Cited by 96Retinal Imaging and AnalysisRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsOphthalmology and Visual Health Research

Different fundus imaging modalities and technical factors in AI screening for diabetic retinopathy: a review

Open access
Lim, Gilbert, Bellemo, Valentina, Xie, Yuchen, Lee, Xin Q., Yip, Michelle Y. T., Ting, Daniel S. W.·2020·Eye and Vision

Abstract

Background: Effective screening is a desirable method for the early detection and successful treatment for diabetic retinopathy, and fundus photography is currently the dominant medium for retinal imaging due to its convenience and accessibility. Manual screening using fundus photographs has however involved considerable costs for patients, clinicians and national health systems, which has limited its application particularly in less-developed countries. The advent of artificial intelligence, and in particular deep learning techniques, has however raised the possibility of widespread automated screening. Main text: In this review, we first briefly survey major published advances in retinal analysis using artificial intelligence. We take care to separately describe standard multiple-field fundus photography, and the newer modalities of ultra-wide field photography and smartphone-based photography. Finally, we consider several machine learning concepts that have been particularly relevant to the domain and illustrate their usage with extant works. Conclusions: In the ophthalmology field, it was demonstrated that deep learning tools for diabetic retinopathy show clinically acceptable diagnostic performance when using colour retinal fundus images. Artificial intelligence models are among the most promising solutions to tackle the burden of diabetic retinopathy management in a comprehensive manner. However, future research is crucial to assess the potential clinical deployment, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different DL systems in clinical practice and improve clinical acceptance.

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/s40662-020-00182-7

Cites

116 of 117 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?

  • In September 2020, the American Medical Association CPT Editorial Panel created code 92229 for retinal imaging with autonomous point-of-care interpretation, allowing institutions adopting AI-guided DR testing to bill for the procedure.

    “Earlier in September 2020, the American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel created code 92229 for retinal imaging with autonomous point-of-care interpretation, which allowed institutions that chose to adopt AI-guided DR testing to be billed for the procedure.”

    From Autonomous Artificial Intelligence in Diabetic Retinopathy Testing—Lessons Learned on Successful Health System Adoption (2026) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Background and Retina fundus imaging modalities sections discuss AI-based diabetic retinopathy screening and FDA approval, but do not address CPT code 92229 or billing. Searches for the code, autonomous point-of-care interpretation, and AMA/CPT reimbursement found no passage supporting the September 2020 claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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
Lim, G., Bellemo, V., Xie, Y., Lee, X. Q., Yip, M. Y. T., & Ting, D. S. W.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Singapore National Eye Center (SG)
Corresponding author
Ting, Daniel S. W.
Venue
Eye and Vision
Published
2020-04-14
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
21-21
ISSN
2326-0254 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3017378335
Cited by
96
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Eye and Vision (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Medical Research Council (1409022)
  • SingHealth Foundation Research Grant (FG648S)
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, artificial intelligence screening, fundus photography, ultra-widefield imaging, deep learning, automated retinal analysis, retinal image analysis, clinical implementation of AI, cost-effectiveness

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